@L (Katnpflaueen

#0e Q0oo8 of S\mief

fn Ibebrew

HE present edition of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament
in Hebrew exhibits the reconstructed text on the basis of which
the new critical translation of the Bible has been prepared by the
learned contributors mentioned on the other page of the cover.
It is, therefore, the exact counterpart of the new English Version. 5
Wherever the translation is based on a departure from the Re-
ceived Text, the deviation appears here in the Hebrew text. Trans-
positions in the translation are also found here in the original.
Departures from the Received Text are indicated by diacritical
signs: <> (z. e. V = Versions) designates a reading adopted on the authority of the 10
Ancient Versions; <> (/. e. c = conjecture), conjectural emendations; and <> (/. e.
3 = Tip}), changes involving merely a departure from the Masoretic points, or
a different division of the consonantal text (e. g. niti'"1 -3111, Eccl. 10,1). A pDB I
indicates transposition of the Masoretic plDB tyiD ; • • is used in cases where the
"Hp has been adopted instead of the 2TI3, and »« for changes introduced on the 15
strength of parallel passages. Doubtful words or passages are marked with
notes of interrogation (■?). Occasionally two diacritical marks are combined,
e. g. * », i. e. deviations from the Received Text suggested by the Versions as
well as by parallel passages; or <>, i. e. departures from the Masoretic points
supported by the Versions, &c. — In cases where two or three consecutive 20
words are transposed the traditional sequence is indicated by x 2 3 &c. respectively
prefixed to the individual words (e. g. 2,45).

The Aramaic portion of the Book (2,4 b — 7,28) has been printed in RED.
The Ancient Versions are referred to in the Notes under the following
abbreviations: M = Masoretic Text; <5 = LXX; ft = Targum ; S = Peshita; 25
£ = Vetus Latina; 3 (z. e. St. Jerome) = Vulgate; A = Aquila; 0 = Theodotion;
Z = Symmachos. w. denotes the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch. <SA
means Codex Alexandrinus (A), <8L= Lucianic recension (A), @M — Ambrosianus
(F; — M = Mediolanensis), ©S = Sinaiticus («), <SV = Vaticanus (B); v?0 is the
Targum of Onkelos; if* = Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan; AV = Authorized Version, 30
RV = Revised Version , RVM Revised Version Margin , OT = Old Testament.
It has not been deemed necessary to classify all the divergences exhibited by the
Ancient Versions. As a rule , only those variations have been recorded on the
authority of which an emendation has been adopted by the editor of the text.

The heavy-faced figures in the left margin of the Notes (1, 2, 3, &c.) refer 35
to the chapters, the numbers in ( ) to the verses of the Hebrew text. The mark
means omit(s) or o»iitted by.

ZH <g 008 of ©antef

KAMPHAUSEN

THE SACRED BOOKS

OF

Zfyt ©ft Ztstmtnt

A CRITICAL EDITION OF THE HEBREW TEXT
PRINTED IN COLORS, WITH NOTES

PREPARED

Bj> eminent Q0t8ficaf ecflofare of 6uvope an& ilntertca

UNDER THE EDITORIAL DIRECTION OF

PAUL HAUPT

PROFESSOR IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE

PART 1 8

ZU $008 of ©anief

BY

A • KAMPHAUSEN

.Eeip^tcj

J. C- HINRICHS'SCHE BUCHHANDLUNG

1896
QSafHmore Bonbon

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS DAVID NUTT, 270-271 STRAND

THE

QBooft of @anief

CRITICAL EDITION OF THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC TEXT

PRINTED IN COLORS

EXHIBITING THE BILINGUAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK

WITH NOTES

BY

A. KAMPHAUSEN, D. D.

PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN

(Sngfief) franefaft'on of i§t (Uof«e

B • W • BACON, D. D. and D B MACDONALD, B. D.

OSWEGO, N. Y. HARTFORD, CONN.

J- C HINRICHS'SCHE BUCHHANDLUNG

1896
(gafftmorc £onoon

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS DAVID NUTT, 270-271 STRAND

PRINTED BY W • DRUGULIN

PAPER FROM FERD • FLINSCH

£ctp3tg

[AU rig/Us reserved]

n

i2.li— n

-«H3«©>S* ©am'cf -fcS-©*Sfc<>

43

12 it seems, however, that the author himself purposely chose somewhat unusual

words.
(11.12] GUNKEL (/. c.y p. 269) erroneously takes vv. 11.12 to be glosses by different
hands, on account of the seemingly definite numbers.
[13] W. Robertson Smith's proposal to delete the first yph, as a transcriptional 5
error, is merely due to faulty exegesis.

42 -«*&«&&■ ©ant'ef 4%®*B$*~- 11,31—12,7

11 Jit DMS ships; but his conjectural emendation D*TS messengers has no greater
value than the suggestion to read D^Xlfi instead of Jit n^S 13. He renders (5 Kai
f|touai 'Pwuaioi Kai dHuuffouorv auxov: et venient, exire earn iubentes Romani.

(31) nyon, which should not be changed to yij?an, is in apposition to ^npttn. In the same
way cce'e is coordinated with pipwn. The article is purposely omitted (cf 8, 13), 5
and it is not advisable to read here Ctt'cSi, with KAUTZSCH-MARTI, following 12, 11
where, for that matter, there is no article. Nor can we assume, with Bevan, a
gloss derived from 9,27.

(32) For the sense it makes no difference, whether, with Jit, we pronounce the adjec-
tive rripbn, or, with Siegfr.-Stade s. v. nj?bn, take nfp^n as a mere by-form of 10
the substantive nij^n (STADE, § 317, b, a ; cf OLSHAUSEN, § 162, a).

(.35) '~!?:?i'3 is correctly translated by 0 ev cpXoYi; (5, however, renders TraXaiujBnaovxai
ev auxfj, nonsensically dividing the word into H2 r6a.

(34) BEHRM. needlessly reads nbpbpn = /// levity, but nip^p'rn, which occurs also in

v. 21, gives a satisfactory sense. As (60 read the same word in both passages, 15
the formation of a new airat Xeyouevov is all the more questionable.

(35) It is possible that we should pronounce, with Hitzig and others, jaW*, following
12, io; yet Jit JsMl, it would seem, should have the preference, if only as more
euphonious; cf. Deut. 26,12; Neh. 10,39. The Pi'el current in the Mishnah is
wanting in the OT; cf. also STADE, §§ 114. a and 621, a, I. 20

(37) 3, like 5 lot\\i, adopts the singular as given by A, eiri 0e6v Traxepwv auxoO,
cf. vv. 38f.; Neh. 9,17. But, as against pft»N, Jit \-6k in the sense of (5's dm Tovq
6eouq is rightly maintained. It is not probable that A found the , at the end of
the word.

(39) We can hardly read, with Hitzig and others but against the Versions, DS> instead 25
of Jit DJ>, as if the reference were to adherents of a strange god, whom the Syrian
king employed to garrison the fortified places (2 S. 15 , 1), or appointed (Ex. 32, 10)
to keep the fortresses in repair OlSDb Is. 22,10). But, however obscure the
verse may be, at any rate the Qere VSP instead of the Kethib T2H (cf. Deut. 15, 14)
is quite superfluous. The same holds good with respect to BEHRMANN's sug- 30
gestion to insert xb before Tnea. This conjecture cannot be admitted as a correct
emendation on the strength of 3's free translation gratuito.

'41) According to v. 12 and Neh. 7,71 we must pronounce /Y13"! instead of Jit nia"l,
which cannot possibly mean Rabbis.

S renders by mistake mxt?, instead of Jit rVWl as the other Versions read. 35

(45) The usual term for pitching a tent is purposely avoided by the author, and plant
(cf. Is. 51,16; Eccl. 12, 11) preferred; it would be foolish to change Jit J?fcP to nfc\

12 (3) Neither (5 oi Kaxicrxuovxet; tolx; Xoyous uou (cf Michaelis, Orient. BibL iv,

p. 40), nor 0, And tujv biKCtiwv xwv ttoXXujv, can be compared with Jit D^ann ''pnxft, 40
which 3 renders with freedom, but correctly, qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos.
(4) BEVAN's reading, ffljrin instead of Jit n^n, is based on (5 Kai TrXnaOri n T'l «&i-
Kia?, but the change is unnecessary; for 1BB»\ which refers to the time shortly
before the end, neither signifies here run hither and thither (in fear), nor does
it need to be changed to '&"■, following ® ewe. Sv aTTOuavworv; (cf. y 4°, 5)- 45

(6) Instead of Jit n&sn, 053 thoughtlessly give the first person 1»«1; cf. 8,13.

(7) Instead of Jit T yS3, BEVAN and KAUTZSCH-MARTI read ^£)i T ; BEHRM., on
the other hand, contents himself with the pronunciation f Bl, without transposing
the words. But the thought that God's help will be nearest when the need is
greatest, would seem to be obtainable without alteration of the text. True, after 50
nlteai something like \>B3 or Y*ib (cf. Jer. 36,23; 51,63) would be very suitable,
unless we prefer to pronounce the verb, which recurs at the end of the verse,

as Infin. Qal. BEVAN, indeed, adds nltes-l to the list of his departures from Jit;

1 1 , 1 7—30 -ota*©-®* ©antef -*3-§>e**~- 4 1

11 It seems more natural, however, to refer it to the Holy Land named immediate-

ly before. This leads to Bertholdt's pronunciation .T?3V

(17) The exegetical gain obtained at the expense of changing one consonant may, per-
haps, excuse the alteration of l?3 to b*. The meaning, then, is that the Syrian
will proceed with energy (Esth. 9,29) against the kingdom of the Egyptian. 3 5
(etponet faciem suam at veniat ad tenendum universum regnum ejus) interprets

in the sense that Antiochus sought to bring the whole kingdom of the Egyptian
under his control; but this translation of the words is contrary to Hebrew usage.
There remains apparently for ill only the rendering of LUTHER and AV which,
however, hardly fits the context, viz., with the strength of his whole kingdom. 10
This translation has also been adopted by Behrm., while Kautzsch- Marti
follow 3.

There is, and rightly, a general agreement in the rendering on the margin of RV
which follows the Ancient Versions, and gives: and shall make equitable conditions
with liini (Luther : aber er wird sich mit Hun vertragen). This implies reading 15
nDr for nDx?l. But the substitution of D-TD^C (v. 6) for the plural of -\Vt\ which we
seem to have in ill D,"itt^, is unnecessary and unsupported by 0. The same applies
to BEVAN's change, based upon the Syriac, of O'Din n3 to DHM3 1H3, and, finally,
to the elimination both of the suffix in njvnDn1? and the dative "6 following upon
^ (cf Is. 7,7)- 20

(18) For the Kethib 3D;i, referring to a fact, the Qere reads DD^I, as in v. 17 where it
merely sets forth an intention. Bevan's bold conjecture is ingenious, but hardly
correct. Resting on the confused ev opKiu of (5, he would substitute DTMBJ for
ill Vlba v?, while Behrm., who is less felicitous in conjecturing n?X3 as the read-
ing of (5, contents himself with striking out the first iV. 25

(20) It makes but little difference for the sense whether we refer Dili {cf. Zech. 9,8)
to the impecunious king Seleucus IV, or directly to Heliodorus. Yet the latter
interpretation of this obscurely expressed verse, now probably the dominant
one, is so harsh, that Bevan wants to transpose ill Dili T3JJ0 into Tnytt Dili, in
order to get the sense an exactor who shall cause the royal dignity to pass away 30

(Cf 2S. 12,13).

To render the indefinite m^tt Tin in the sense of ,3S is difficult; \iX is every-
where made definite by the article (8,9; 11,16.41; cf Ezek. 20,6. 18) or by an
appended DTp (v. 45). Ewald's translation, which makes an exactor pass through
a most glorious kingdom, is no less questionable. Moreover, we expect the pre- 35
position 3 (I)eut. 2,30) or *7N (Jos. 4,8) before "Tin, since it is not a river (Jos. 7,7).
Passages like 2 S. 2,8 do not prove that "Tin is an accusative of direction, nor do
they warrant the translation send an exactor to the glory of the kingdom. We
have, further, to consider that the Ancient Versions, influenced, it would seem,
especially by ni3^tt Tin in the following verse and by the well-known combination 40
of Tin and Tin {cf. e.g. i|M|/2I,6; 45,4) did not think of taking "nn = \asn. True,
05 (tutttwv ooEctv PaaiXewr) and 0 (Trpdacauv ooEav paaiXeiat;) have connected
Dili with Tin contrary to the accents, but this very fact supports the order
of words assailed by Bevan. There is no need whatever of changing the text
if we take Dili as a so-called comparatio decurtata, translating as exactor; cf 45
41 22,14 and Ges.-Kautzsch^ § n8,5,c.

(22) Instead of JH *)BD"n, Bevan and KatjtZSCH-MarTI- pronounce *|bDn, which is

scarcely an improvement.
26) BEVAN and KAUTZSCH-MARTI strike out 1 before "i,iDC3; but Behrm. is pro-
bably more nearly right in beginning the new verse with 1. 50
BEVAN and Kautzsch-Marti read *$ti\ (cf v. 22) instead of *flB$\i but the in-
transitive construction occurs also in vv. 10 and 40.

(30) J. D. MlCHAELIS (Orientalische Bibliothek, iv , 39) took unfounded exception to

Dan. 6

40 -oHS*©^ ©antef ^-s>sh«- II)7_i6

II The plural i in rW3bl should probably be retained, with Ginsb. against Bar.

Also ill rnbvn (AV: he that begat her) deserves the preference over -Tjb'n (Luther :
und /m't dem Kinde). Behrm., pronouncing the last word DV>J>2, obtains the
sense: and both she and he that sent for her (Jud. 12,9) shall become a terror,
also her child, and he who took her to himself (v. 21). The German Revised 5
Version (Halle, 1892) gives the conclusion of the verse more correctly as follows:
und mil de/n der sie erzeugt hat, tend de/n, der sie cine Welle mdchtig gemacht
hatte. (English RV as in AV, except that those is substituted for these of AV :
and he that begat her, and lie that strengthened her in those times).
(7) By turning the three words of ill 133 rPBnw 1X30 into 133 by rrEntPD "m, the apo- 10
calyptic type of language is certainly assimilated to that in ordinary use; but for
such needless changes of the text Behrm. should not appeal to 05. We might
rather be inclined to question the first K3J1, since the sense and he shall take the
field against the army is not exactly suitable before ^Tin bx, much less and lie
shall come to power. BEVAN is perhaps right in reading Vri (o)r6s N3M. In this 15
way we gain an intelligible basis for the subsequent DH2, and the consonantal
text is but slightly changed.
(10) The K°thib 1331 is rightly taken by the Qere as plural (= l^ai).

There is no need, however, to accept the second and third Qere's in the verse,
merely because the final letters of the two Kethib-forms vnrp and ntyo might be 20
confused with one another. The plural form may be referred to D^TI, and niir
seems to be supported by the words ]1SXn "]^» DJ? in v. 11, which arc no marginal
gloss. Fn|fP would also read more smoothly inasmuch as, with the Kethib, the
Athnach would not be expected until 3t5H. This presents no doubt a certain
difficulty. 25

(12) The sense being so obscure, it is hard to make positive choice between the
Kethib Dll'' and the Qere Oil.

(13) Behrm. and Kautzsch-Marti follow BEVAN who, comparing v. 6, regards,
against ©0, DYlJjn as a gloss which has crept in from the following verse. This
assumption may not be wholly impossible, yet it is certainly improbable. Absolu- 30
tely inadmissible is BEHRMANN's further conjecture that we should read,
with 03, 13 NIT instead of K13 Kin' (cf v. 20 ; 2 K. 5 , 1 1), as if our author had written
two 2's one after the other.

(14) For ill Dai 05 has bidvoiai, and it has been ingeniously suggested that the
original text had D"3^ Libyans (v. 43), for which 05 read nil'?; ef Michaelis, 35
Orient. Bibl. iv, pp. 38 f. On the strength of 05 dvoiKobouqaei xti TTetrxuJKOxa xou
68vouc; aou BEVAN would read here, following Am. 9, 11, tje? ^"lfi "OS, those who
build up the /'reaches of thy people. RUD. SMEND has shown (AT Rclig., p. 383)
that even with the (grammatically unassailable) construction of ill our passage
may very well be interpreted as referring to a flaming up of the Messianic hope 40
and to an attempt to throw off all heathen domination. A. SCHLATTER, again, in
ZAT ('94, pp. 145 ff.) thinks especially of the robber family of the Tobiadae
(WELLH., Jiid. Gesch., p. 200, English translation, pp. i4off). "OS, however, does
not necessarily refer to a family, so we understand the robber crew of tax-con-
tractors with all their adherents; ef Matth.3,7. 45

(15) It is not necessary, with 053, Luther, AV, to read MISS D,%1». 05 confirms the
singular TJJ (RV, a fenced city).

The unusual (cf, however, 2 Chr. 36, 19) expression Vimn DJ? should not induce
us to read, with KAUTZSCH-MARTI, inn? DJ?, and to delete, as another case of
dittography, the 1 of the apodosis in yx, which follows in ill; see on 8,25. 50

The conjecture mentioned by GlNSB., tTW 1fi»1, gives a suitable sense; but it
repeats itself somewhat at the end of the verse.

(16) ill rr531 (cf 9,27) implies that Antiochus will bring destruction to the Egyptians.

1 1, 1 — 6 -oK3-*s-S<<- ©ant'ef $3-s»es*>~ 39

10 pirc, coincident with the accession of the so-called Mede Darius, and the favor
shown the Jews some years later, in the permission to return, which was first

ven by Cyrus. Secondly, in the endeavor to give better form to the seemingly
awkward description, the great liking the author evinces for repetitions, or re-
sumptions (sec on 7, 1 1), has been quite overlooked. This has led one of the latest 5
and best expositors into very violent treatment of the Hebrew text. Behrm.,
who also takes unwarranted exception (cf OLSH., p. 415) to the vocalization
"nan, permits himself, besides transposing a half-verse, to strike out two half-
verses. With v. 20 he connects 2ib, then reads 11, ib (here "HOS? is changed to
ley), finally 2ia and n,2b, so that il,ia and 2a arc entirely struck out. Others 10
(BEVAN, KAUTZSCH-MARTI) are content with striking out II, la, and changing to
nej? and ^ the words H»J? and \b, which belong to the alleged gloss discovered by
W. Robertson Smith.

11 (i) Must we read Tney for ill nop? The only grammatical parallel is Job 9,27; but 15

there, too, the text may be corrupt [see Siegfried ad loc.].

(4) It is natural to read l&XW*, following the parallel 8,8, instead of llbMI (AV -.And
when he shall stand up), which recalls the beginning of v. 3. Yet this change is
not strictly necessary, for the explanation as quickly as he has risen up which
has been retained by KAUTZSCH-MARTI, seems in itself quite possible, and 20
especially so in our writer, who is not at all averse to hidden meanings. However,
the change suggested by Gratz, Bevan, and Behrm. fits very well, and seems
even to have suggested itself to Luther, as appears in his free translation wenn
erauf's Hochste gekommen is/. To substitute 3 for 3, although, according to Ginsb.,

3 is not unattested by authorities, is not advisable. Against © ev tuj avaaxnvcu 25
aurov we have 0 vj<; civ axrj.

Instead of imruxb fctVl, S offers *fij-ep ^1 JJo, as though he read, or guessed,
13*]ri3 iib). ill is thoroughly backed by 0, ouk eiq xd eax«xo auxoO, while (5, fail-
ing to understand the words, has altogether omitted them. (Against the text of
(5 as given by SWETE, cf. Schleusner, Thes. i, p. 154). 3°

(5) Without change of the consonants Luther refers the suffix in V"ito to Alexander
the Great, and translates ill v"i^—]p\: welcher ist seiner Fursten einer, taking 1 to
mean that is. Hitzig and others are probably more correct in placing Athnach,
with 03, under 3 Jin, so that the suffix refers to the king of the South (so AV:
and one of his princes). But if we disregard the traditional accentuation, it will 35
be better, with Meinhold, to strike out the 1 in the second pim as an erroneous
repetition of the preceding 1. To regard it as a 1 of the apodosis, with Bevan
and Behrmann, is less satisfactory.

(6) Of the numerous alterations suggested here (see on 9,24) the only probable one
would seem to be to substitute, with 03, Ijnn for ill ijhn. This has also been 40
done by LUTHER.

The scriptio plena n")3 only occurs here, and is not accepted by the Baby-
lonians. It is, perhaps, due to the mistaken idea that the word should be in the
absolute state. Yet there was nothing to prevent our author from using n3 as
construct, notwithstanding 10,8. 45

In the translation of KAUTZSCH-MARTI, which leaves the final word Cfljn un-
translated, we read: to establish peaceful relations; but this expedient will not
endure, and a/so his (other) expedients 70/'// accomplish nothing. Thus HlTZIG's
pronunciation lint '"ittsr t6l is followed. Behrm., on the other hand, has extract-
ed strange things (see on 6,1) from ill Ijnn T2V Vtb\ by treating these three 50
words as a gloss. With the translation and they abide not in their undertaking,
the gloss, thus confused to the point of unintclligibility, is supposed to be restored;
but for its original Hebrew wording BEHRM. offers no less than three alternatives.

38 -ofts*®^ ©anwf ♦>§•©>«£**>- 10,9 — 20

10 (9) BEHRM. again regards as a gloss the "OS! in this description, which is often pur-
posely circumstantial. But the word is indispensable, because the writer intends
to combine what has been stated both in 8, 17 and 18.

The translation of ©0, f|ur|v with the participle, is correct. But the conjunction
preceding wn "'iX seems to have been taken by them as the 1 of the apodosis. 5
It must be regarded, with BEVAN, as introducing a circumstantial clause.

(12) The angel came in response to Daniel's words of prayer. Behrm., therefore,
has no reason for reading ^lTU =for thy sake, with elimination of the \

Just as tyatM, rightly rendered by 3 exaudita {sunt verba tua), refers to what
has been decided for weeks past, but the execution of which has again and 10
again been deferred, so TX2 points to the fact that he has been intending to
come long before he now at length arrives.

(ij) MEINHOLD, BEHRM., and GlNSB. rightly read, with ©0, Vfnnin instead ofmnii
(cf. Ez. 39,28). The meaning came off victorious, attributed by LUTHER, SlEGF.-
STADE, GES.-BUHL to the Nif'al, is contrary to the context; for the conflict is still 15
to be continued (v. 20) ; nor is there any evidence of its currency in Hebrew
usage. The assumption of a circumstantial clause (cf. vv. _i'\ 9b) gives to the
Nif'al a sense which, according to Gen. 32,25, would be admissible; but the
translation while I had reinained behind (previously alone" requires an inadmis-
sible addition. It would still be better, as I maintained formerly (BUNSEN's Bibel- 20

•werk, Leipzig, 1867), to construe the words "Y\v?: nam as a parenthesis, if

only the rendering of AV, and I remained there, i. c. therefore I had to remain
there, were not rather far-fetched. GRATZ's more radical alteration, Wlffln infcl,
on account of outov preceding KaTtXmov, is needless. Finally, when BEHRM.
repeats BERTHOLDT's conjecture that TO also has dropped out before *ate, BEVAN 25
is entirely right in replying: "It is quite unnecessary to suppose that ifc has fallen
out, for the rendering of the LXX (uerd toO aTpaTrproO toO pamXewc. TTepouiv)
is probably an expansion of the original, just as in v. 20 CIS "ifo DJJ is translated
uexci toO aTpuxriTou pumXeuuc; tujv TTepawv."

The rendering by ©S of ^bo in the singular is just as arbitrary {cf. v. 1); 0 30
renders freely, as if we had mrbtt again.

(14) GlNSB. observes: np sop', 2TD nnp^, while Bar (p. 97) gives no Qere in c. 10. ill
evidently permits itself in the pronunciation n^\>) a pun recalling Gen. 49,1.

In accordance with the tic. npepa? of ©0, the last word should be pronounced
D'O^; the article inserted by Jit is out of place; cf 8,26. 35

(17) nnj?D is confirmed by 0 urro xou vuv, but it is said to be inapposite or colorless.
BEVAN and BEHRM. needlessly read nnj?30 (ef. Jer. 8, 15) =for fear; or iWlfi
(cf v. 11; Is. 33,14).

(19) Taking unnecessary offense at the repetition (cf 2 Sam. IO,l2), BEVAN would
read |'CNi (cf e.g. Jos. 1,6) instead of ptm. But this alteration has no adequate 40
support in the free translation of (65; BEHRM. reads even ptnni (11,7.32). The

1, usually wanting before a second imperative (cf. 2 Sam. 16,7), remains in solemn
discourse, e.g. ijjgo, 17. The rendering of KaUTZSCH-Marti is good: Take cpurage,
yea, take courage.

(20) In the section 10,20-11,2 the evil influence of© has led not only to a wrong 45
division of the chapters, but also, in the case of many expositors, to radical alter-
ations of the text. Yet the well known arbitrariness and freedom of the Alexan-
drian treatment of the Book of Daniel is sufficiently shown in c. 10, where c. g.

© makes the third year the first in v. 1, and changes the heating in v. 9 to not
hearing. Careful exegesis removes the double objection that Jtt seems to create. 50
In the first place, it quite escaped the attention of the Greek reader, who sub-
stituted for II, la kcu iv xw ^vkxutlu [tuj Trpiijxuj Kupou toO PotatXeujc;, that our
author sharply distinguishes in time between the overthrow of the Chaldean em-

9,26— io,S -««3^B«- ©am'ef ■$&&*&&- 37

g 2 ' If the alleged mutilation of the text were a fact, the easiest emendation would
be, to follow Fell's suggestion, and insert ]XR guilt after "6 ]\X1. It is true that
0, Kid Kpiua ouk eoTiv iv auTu) is very uncertain evidence for this. There is
no need of mentioning the other conjectural additions which have been suggest-
ed. If the author has purposely left something unsaid, expositors may seek to 5
guess his thought, but are not justified in inserting their fancies in the text.
[27] Richard Kraetzschmar (Die Bundesvorstellung im AT, Marburg, 1896,
p. 234, n. 2) thinks that if it be necessary at all to make an emendation, it suffices
to read 1*3311 instead of Jit Tain. But he is hardly right in attributing to both of
these words the meaning to make difficult, as though the sense were, the per- 10
formance of the duties of the Covenant regarding the worship of the Lord shall
be made difficult. To make difficult would be V33n, but not V33n or V3in. We
might rather compare nntf Mai. 2,9, ^>>n, Mai. 2, 10, and b&i to defile, Neh. 13,29,
which verbs are used also of the Covenant.

If, with VAN LENNEP, BEVAN, and others, we read 122, following 11,20.21.38, this 15
has nothing to do with the reading of 030, era to iepov, or of 3 in templo. There
are plenty of departures from i)\ in the Ancient Versions in vv. 24-27 which
must be regarded as pure fancies.

KUEN] N is unquestionably right in saying that '13 y\pVf might very easily be
transcribed by error '0 Di'lpC; but it by no means follows from this that the 20
author did not here intend the plural. It might be well to add that ill writes
Ci'lptf, while the next word is written by Bar aaitste, but by GlNSBURG, following
numerous authorities, without 1.

[Dr. Paul RUBEN states on p. 11 of his Critical Remarks upon some passages
of the OT (London, 1896): "Dan. 9,27 we must read netfen JMptf «|i3,l bv }nri 25
nyimi nbs IV — (a) I write nstfE- y^Pf according to 03 Dan. 11,31; 12, II; 0
Dan. 12, 11 (JH Dttteta D^ljPtf) ; — (b) Qttftf bv rrrtri is a correction of D'XIjPtf *]33 bv\
CCti'S; rjriri is corrupted from ]T\h) (030 oo8n.o"eTc/.r, |1"0 being used also 11,31;
I2,ii. — (c) 03 has ku\ eiri to iepov = ^23,1 bv), 2 et crit in templo; these trans-
lations might be only the outcome of guessing, or iepov might be a corruption 30
of -rrrepov; two things, however, are sure: (1) that 05 read the article; (2) that
there is some connection of this passage with 1 Mace. 1,54 tuKobounaav pbeXuy-
,ua em* to 9uoiao"Tf|piov, and therefore of the ^23 with the altar."] I consider
these conjectures quite unnecessary; nor can I believe that *]23 here or in Hos.
4, 19 is an old Semitic word for the place around the altar, i. e. a kind of ktitto^. 35

IO (i) In nuxtrcbz the letter K stands properly not before but after t?, as in 1,7; 2,26;
4,5.6.15.16; 5,12; cf 5,30.
.4, BEHRM. arbitrarily declares bp"ir, Kin to be an incorrect gloss. But we have here
a man of God, more than 80 years old, holding high office in the East (6,29), 40
and not engaged in Babylon alone {cf. 8,2). The exaggerated expectations of
his coreligionists who had returned to Judah could not be shared by one who
knew how troublous would be the time (9,25). It is of intention, then, that our
author turns his hero's steps toward the east rather than the west.

(7) Unless in order to hide themselves is to be taken as a free translation, it is more 45
inexact than 3's fugerunt in absconditum. Flight does not always secure a hiding-
place. The statement that they both fled and hid themselves, is, consequently,
by no means superfluous. There is therefore no warrant {cf Esth. 2,8) for chang-
ing the text to N2nnb, which would yield a different sei.se; cf. 1 K 22,25'.

(8) BEHRM. is wrong in regarding the final words 113 vmj? vf>\ which recur in v. 16, 50
as a gloss. His argument that they can easily be done without, is not valid.
-X.<?*£J*»

V "or Dcb;n f,j5L", cf Nestle, ZAT 4,248." t "im = bs behind}"

36 -c*S3«©-K«- ©anief ^•©*e&~- 9,22—25

GiNSB. states, however, that there are a number of authorities who prefer
nb&n?. Of course, Ginsb. decides, with Bar, in favor of the article.

There can be but little doubt that (5 xdxei cpepouevcc; has hit the sense we
should expect. Also the other Ancient Versions aim at this meaning. 0 gives
for r)5,2 *)»» simply Tretouevoc. (cf Ew. § 341 b). Some might, therefore, feel 5
inclined to delete the difficult t\S"'2. But Ges. (Thes. 610), not without reason,
considers festinare foetus =festinans as somewhat doubtful. Behrm. thinks that
the Inf. Hofal should, perhaps, be read; but his reference to Is. 22,17 does not
make that any more probable to my mind.

It seems very plausible to substitute, with Behrm. and KAUTZSCH-MARTI, follow- 10
ing (65, for ]Vl of ill the emendation tXD, or perhaps inM = Xim (cf I K. 12,12).
This change is also approved by GiNSB., but the evidence of 0, who changes
the TTpoaP|\ee of © to auvexiaev ue (cf 8, 16) = 3 docuit me, is against it.

(23) BEHRMANN's conjecture, following 10,11.19, that t?\X has dropped out before
nnion, is unnecessary. (S's e\eeiv6c and dvOpumoc; eXeewoc. confirm the omission 15
of WS in the first passage (cf. Gen. 4,1 and \\i 21,7), although this may have
been based, as BEVAN thinks, on a false reading, nnpn.

(24) By the use of indefinite and obscure expressions the author has succeeded in
preventing certain passages in vv. 24-27 from ever being understood with any
certainty. But the more the difficulties in understanding an important passage 20
of the Book of Daniel accumulate, the less we are permitted to make an attempt

at overcoming them by mere alteration of the text. In such cases the text has
probably been transmitted with especial care. Behrm. (p. xxxi) rightly deems
the worth of (6 for textual criticism but slight (cf also MlCHAELIS, Orient. Bibl.
iv, 26 ff., especially p. 32). 05's treatment of this passage, added to its general 25
shortcomings, may have turned the scale (Behrm., p. xxxvi) in favor of its being
early supplanted by 0. The incorrect pronunciation of D,}?2B' for D"1}?^, which
we find in (8, set aside the weeks of years, and did not lend itself, therefore, to
the exegesis of the Church which applied the prediction to the time of Christ.
I'.i HRM. gives a very careful collation of vv. 24-27 in itt with the Ancient Versions 30
(pp. xxxiv-xxxvii). The results, however, are but scanty, especially as in the
resume" given on p. xxxvii we must strike out at least 133 for f)3r, v. 27. No
exegete has derived this reading from any Ancient Version; it is pure conjec-
ture (cf 11,21). We are indebted for this emendation (which Kuenen, Ond.2 ii,
472 pronounced very reasonable) to the young Dutch theologian J. W. van 35
Lennep, whose thesis (De zeventig jaarweeken van Daniel 9,24-27, Utrecht,
1 888) was reviewed by me as a noteworthy piece of work in Schurer's Theol.
Lit. Zeit. '89, No. 5.

The Kethib should probably be read lYINfen Dftnb] Jjtfsn tiblb. The second pair
of these four words is corrected in the Qere to nKBn ennh; ill ytfsn x^, how- 40
ever, excites redoubled suspicion both by the peculiar verbal form (cf Hos. 6,9;
Jer. 38,4 with Dan. 12,7) and by the article, which elsewhere in the verse is
wanting. As in 8, 12 .22 the beginning of a word was seen to have been corrupted
by the mutilation of the end of the preceding one, so here we may read J?B*S ni^.

(25) BEVAN thinks that instead of VVfnb we should read Ttfnb to people, and 3Bto 45
for 2ltfn (cf Is. 44,26; Jer. 30,18; Ez. 36, 10. u .33). Behrm. regards this con-
jecture as plausible, but he himself translates shall be built again. Further,
BEVAN would replace the obscure fnn by fin (Jer. 5,1), following 5 and making
yini Sirn mean with public plaees and streets. This is more acceptable than to
get from (5 (v. 27 eic, TrXdToc. kou |uf|Koc) and 0 (TrXareTa xai xeixo?) the readings 50
:prfc and y;n. On the other hand, the often attempted supplanting of the ctTraS
Xerouevov p1S by y\>, which seems to have been had in view also by 63, can
hardly be defended.

9,4 — -i ~°«3<5-s* ©atmf *>5-©»BS*»- 35

is deleted by \Yi 1 LHAUSEN in Mic. 2,4, are obvious; see on 2,1, where BEVAN,
however, docs not take exception to the word. But the elimination can hardly
be based on the authority of®, although this is also done by GlNSB. The reading
of (!) is here at variance with 0. Similarly, it would be inadmissible to infer from
the free translation of nrsbo by i-'pT", opera, Geschafte in the plural (cf 1 Kings 5
9,23), that 03 and LUTHER read 1 before n.

g (4) Von Gall (pp. 123 ff.) states that the whole section 9,4-20 did not form a part
of the original Book. His arguments, however, are not valid. To supplement
his hypothesis, he might just as well assume that a section of the same length 10
had dropped out in this ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel.
(5) The Qere strikes out ) before IJJWin, the first of the second pair of words, but
this 1 is found according to GlNSB. in good editions both as Kethib and Qere.
However dragging it might appear in ordinary prose, it can hardly be said to
be unsuited to the broad style used in prayer. 15

On "jniXfiia without the plural ', which is also wanting in v. 16, cf. \\> 119,98
and GES.-KAUTZSCH26, § 91, n.
6] In connection with the ninth chapter it may be well to call attention to some
minor points which, though not affecting the sense, will help to show how fre-
quently the editions of Jtt by Bar (Leipzig, 1882) and GlNSBURG (London, 1894) 20
are at variance. In this verse, e.g. Bar (p. 81) writes D\X3in, but GlNSB., follow-
ing many good editions, D^aJH.

(7) Both editors prefer, with the Masorah, in vv. 7.8.17 the Palestinian readings to
the Babylonian. Thus they read D1»3, \V^h and -|EHp»-^S? instead of DITD, linfe^?
and "pnperbs. But in Bar (p. 90), we miss the note given by GlNSB., stating 25
that only itt and the Palestinian school begin v. 9 with "Oixb; the Orientals, on
the other hand, with 7\\xvh.

(8) According to the best MSS and ancient printed editions, the verse begins with
run", not with "ins.

(9) Bar writes fflnteni without \ GlNSBURG with \ 30

(10) BAR writes (p. 82) vrhro and, as in v. 6, D\S33n, GlNSB. IVVTirQ and GWSin.

(11) Bar writes "ibl, GlNSBBURG, as in v. 5, TiDl.

(12) The Kethib vnrt, as against the Qere Ti:fj, should be retained with the Versions
and Neh. 9,8.

(13) BEHRM. translates: calamity that is conic, putting the tone, against the accents, 35
upon the last syllable of nto. lie thinks that the article is wanting before the
word. His object is to make fix depend on Winb (v. 12). BEVAN, following

1 Kin--, 2,21, connects ns with 11113, which, it must be admitted, stands nearer;
but cf. (003 and GES.-KAUTZSCH26, § 117,1, note 7 or EWALU, § 277, d, 2.
(16) For ?[rij?"1S, see on v. 5. 40

(17] BEVAN's reading of ^"lav, before "OIK, taken as a vocative, fits very well; but per-
haps the reading expressed by 0 in eveKtv oou, Kupie, following- v. 19, is still
simpler than (5 evexev tujv bou\aiv cou, beaTTora; cf. Is. 63,17; \\i 115,1. At any
rate, BEHRM.'s view that "IIN \ynb is a gloss which has crept into the text, is
entirely superfluous. In view of the exceptional harshness of the expression it 45
would be more natural to assume a gloss in v. 16 (cf. Jud. 10, ii; Ezra7,7; Is.
10, 10). The preposition repeated in Kautzsch's translation before IBHp "in (cf.
v. 20) is no more expressed in the original than is the ct inserted by 3. This
harshness, however, is the counterpart to the breadth of style affetted elsewhere,
and the Received Text is confirmed by (50. 50

The Kethib nnp:S (cf v. 19) must be preferred to the Qere npB, although, or be-
cause, the latter occurs in 2 K. 19, 16 and Is. 37, 17.
(21) The pronunciation r6sn2 is confirmed by the context (d50, ev rfj Trpoaeuxf)).

34 -ofS*©-^ ©ant'ef •*§"©»ef*>~ 8,14 — 27

8 why GlESEBRECHT (Gott. gel. Anz. 1895, P- 599) should declare them to be an

interpolation. He is then, of course, obliged to delete the words npani myn
"I0N3 "i»N in v. 26.
(14) Instead of ill ^«, read, with 60S, v|?K; Daniel is but a listener.
(9-14) [According to a paper by Geo. F. Moore, read at the meeting of the American 5
Oriental Society, April, 1896, the D'OtlTi K3S in v. 10 is not the Jewish people, as
commonly interpreted (D"0313 being taken metaphorically), but the heavenly bo-
dies as the Gods of the heathen nations (cf. Is. 24,21 ; Enoch 80, &c), as in v. 1 1
the JOSH "it? is not a ruler of the Jews (Grotius, a/.), but the God of the Jews,
the Supreme God. V. 10 is then to be understood in the light of 11,36-39; 10
1 Mace. 1,41 ff., of Antiochus' attacks on other religions of his realm, as v. 11 of
his attempts on that of the Jews. (In v. 1 1 read active verbs). At the beginning
of v. 12 and in v. 13 N3X is intolerable. In v. 12 neither (5 nor 0 expresses the
word; in 13 it is absent from (D at least. In both cases MOORE conjectures that
it was originally written "OSl, a gloss to the preceding word : v. 11, p3tt ^b'f^A 15
<:>(«>5Xi) I <>BHpt2; v. 13 DDiO {<:*-.) Bhpl. V. 12 is then to be restored: Tttnn by pin<V
yt?B<> (see (5, and Bertholdt); JJtrs is, like DCb* JWBn(!) v. 13, the altar of Zeus,
elsewhere Dttt? pptf (cf. DRIVER, Introduction*, p. 539, ad p. 461 ; Germain ed.,
p. 528, n. 2). In v. 13 the most probable emendation seems to be: <1Din> TOnn
Done :(<*asi) CHpl nn (cor) J?t?Bm; cf. (!3 11,31; 12,11. The paper will be printed 20
in vol. xv of the fournal of Biblical Literature, Boston. — P. H.] None of the
emendations suggested by Prof. Moore commends itself to my judgment.

(22) ""la can hardly mean subjects, as opposed to the royal family. Read therefore,
with ©0, V130 instead of ^itt. This is all the more probable ;is, owing to the
corruption of the end of the word (cf. v. 12), an appears to have been corrupt- 25
ed to , at the beginning of the word following. Thus the suspicious niiey of ill,
which is natural neither as an Aramaism nor as an archaism in Hebrew, is re-
placed by rm»J?n, the only form which we should expect. On the other hand, there

is no ground for striking out in:2 vb\ with BEHRM., as a transcriptional error
derived from v. 24. 0 writes iv rf| iaxui, which is more accurate than (D's Kara 30
xr|v iaxuv; see on v. 24.

(23) Instead of iH n^tfsn, (O0S understand here n-JJttten, thus following the Qere of
9,24 which reads nnn^. The pronunciation of ill, however, though rejected
even by GiNsc, deserves the preference, if only because of the Hifil. Gall's
(p. 49) emendation D"J>tfBn Dh3 (cf. Is. 18,5) is unnecessary. 35

(24) Kautzsch-Marti regard WOS t6l as a gloss which has crept in here from v. 22 —
the converse of Behrmann's opinion. But the real state of the case is simply
reversed by the assertion that the interpretation — surely the only correct one
— that Antiochus Epiphanes owed his successes to his intrigues, is more arti-
ficial than making the suffix again refer to Alexander the Great. Equally need- 40
less is BEVAN's assumption, that instead of IVntr we should read nntr or rvto;;
for the adverbial construction (otherwise in 1 1 , 36) of niKbsa creates no difficulty.

(24.25) Instead of v^2& bjn :D'EHp DJM, GRATZ, following the free rendering of© kou erri xou?
trf iou<; to biavor|,ua auroO, wished to read l"?:tr D"Bnp by\ GlNSB. makes the same
proposal, and this radical alteration of the text is also approved by BEVAN, 45
Kautzsch-Marti, and GALL. But in Hebrew the 1 of the apodosis is of frequent
occurrence (cf. GES.-KAUTZSCH26, § 143, b, n. 2). Against the opinion that there
can be no reference to the people of the saints before v. 25 ((5 has xai bn.uov
dfiurv at the end of v. 24), BEHRM. makes the pertinent remark, that our author
is not particularly careful to avoid repetition. 50

(27) Kautzsch-Marti think it necessary to strike out 1 W^n?. They assert that this
is undoubtedly nothing but a transcriptional error for Ti^m, the coordinating 1
being a subsequent addition. The objections against this Nifal of n\~t, which

8,9 — 13 -~B3*©-§* ©antcf -*§■€>£•*>- 33

8 lagen to his AT, p. 87), however, says: "Read with (5 and 0, nnriX;" see also AUG.

VON Gall, Die "Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel, (lessen, 1895, p. 48, n. 1.
B] HRM., on die other hand, adopts Ewald's view (Ew. § 317,0), an appearance
of 'four ■== figures appearing like four, as if it were intimated that the appearance
must be understood to be in floating' outlines; cf. 5,5.24; 10,18; Ez. 1,5. But 5
there is not any more reason for such an intimation here than in 7,8. Nor is
nitn ever used in a way which would make it practically the equivalent of 3 like.
(9) Instead of OHO W. Diehl reads ]nD; see on 1,5.

Instead of nVJJSfc nn« we should read apparently, with BEVAN and others, follow-
ing 7,8, rrvgS rnnN. The preposition |p, which Gratz wished to strike out, is 10
indeed very harsh, whether ilVJW {cf. Gen. 19,31; 43,33) be taken, with SCHLEUS-
NER (Novus Thes.m, 125) and Ges. {Thes. 805), adjective!)-, or, with von Len-
GERKE and BUHL, substantively. Barth's assumption (Nominalbildung, § 165)
of a feminine adjective n'V'JJXia is altogether improbable. Behrm., who calls
Hi van's change of the consonantal text arbitrary, will not even depart from M. 15
It is true that, in point of sense, of less value would agree very well with 7,8
and 11,21; for Ahtiochus Epiphanes as a younger son had as yet no right to
the throne. But still easier, from the grammatical point of view, would be Ewald's
explanation (§ 270 ,b, n. 2), who obtained the timeless participle by pointing
STVJJXt?, retaining the nns authenticated by ffi and 0 (ev). 20

(11) Instead of ill ~^'ni, read the inf. abs. "sj^rrl (cf. 9,5. 11), and instead of the need-
less Qere D"in, retain the Kethib, pronouncing D"Hn. It is certainly not to be re-
garded, with OLSH. (§ 259 end) and others, as a passive formed on the analogy
of the Aramaic (cf.7,4); cf. Gesen.-Kautzsch26, § 72, n. 9. Gall suggests T\b*-[17\
instead of "ni!"!; but this emendation is unnecessary: the change of gender here 25
points to the Syrian King, not to the horn which re-appears at the end of v. 12.

(12) Ewald's (§ 174, g) and BEHRMANN's explanation of N2X as a feminine, with the
meaning military service or temple service, does not seem satisfactory. We there-
fore read, to suit the preceding and following iOX (vv. 11. 13), the passive per-
fect ]F\) instead of \T\IT\. Gall resorts to a very radical alteration of the text. 30
He thinks that, following (50, the beginning of v. 12 should read Tttnn by ]n^
)!Z'Zn nnd es wurde gelegt auf das tdgliche Opfer der Frevel.

Instead of ill 'ijVttfril, which can hardly refer to the horn as agent, we pronounce
"sj^frt. As the text is deprived of one consonant by the reading ]t\i, the first
word of the verse should, perhaps, be read ItOSI, i. e. God ' s army. Thus not 35
only the want of the article in JOit disappears, but in the transition from king to
horn the change of gender which appears in the last two words of v. 12 is ex-
plained without violence. In other cases, too, it would seem that a slight cor-
ruption of the text at the end of a word has also affected the following word;

Cf. V. 22; 9,24. 40

(13) The usual pronunciation JipbtMtl, followed by Bar (p. 81) and GlNSB. (cf. also
Gesen.-Kautzsch26, § 10,2, note B), should be changed, with Olsh., §65,0, to

Further changes in the intentionally obscure expressions of this verse, c. g.
Bevan's D"vi» Tenn, commended also by GlNSB;, are scarcely advisable. In- 45
stead of nn DfiU> JWBH1 Gall would read, following (5, ]R) DOb* ytfsi 0"Jto. In spite
of (5 ^pn.uujaeujq or epn.iuujo'eujv, WELLHAUSEN's abomination of horror (Isr. und
fiid. Gesch., Berlin, 1894, p. 204) corresponds better to the intentionally varied (cf.
9,27; 11,31; 12, n) expressions of the original text, than the desolating apostasy or
abomination of desolation of Behrm. BEHRM., however, is right in rejecting the 50
view of Kautzsch (Beilagen, p. 88), who thinks that the words CHpl nn are mean-
ingless; cf. besides 1,3 also 7,20; Ex.21, 16; \\> 76,7. [See also Nestle, ZAT.iv,
248; Marginalien, p. 35]. Verses 13.14 are indeed difficult, but this is no reason

Dan. 5

32 -«83^&* ©am'ef *>§"©»sh°- 7,18— 8,8

7 that by the construct state, even in v. 27, unobjectionable. Nor would it be
difficult to (cf 4,9) obtain the feminine form of the verb.

(18) ©0 have not expressed Nttbj? 1)1 in their free versions. We need not infer, how-
ever, that this omission, at least so far as (5 is concerned, was due to careless-
ness. For example, (<5 omits in 8,5 the words psi jnii ]\S1, although they are 5
translated by 0. In the preceding verse, 8,4, on the other hand, ©, failing to
understand the original, made the arbitrary addition of the East (cf 2,38),
which is not found in 0.

(19) In accordance with v. 3 we should expect here rPJtf, as GlNSB. reads, or the ac-
tive participle, written by KAUTZSCH (§ 56, a, (5,2) N"3tS>; but Bar, Strack (p. 10
45*), and Marti prefer the passive K\M0 (cf KAUTZSCH, § 47,g,i,f), although

it is not so well attested.

(20) As in v. 8, so here also (but not in 5,5} Marti substitutes the fern, form of the
Qere for the masculine Kcthib l^Dil; see on nipaJi, 5,5.

GUNKEL [p. 327, n. 2) thinks that the predicate characterizing the eyes as look- 15
ing haughtily has dropped out not only here but also in v. 8; this assumption,
however, is unnecessary.
(22) EWALD was perhaps right in his conjecture, partly anticipated by J. D. Ml-
CHAELIS, that the words NJt^ten 3JV have dropped out before 2<V. (5 fn.v Kpiorv
£bwKe, and 0, to xpiua ebtuxev, appear, notwithstanding v. 14, where they trans- 20
late £&66r|, to have pronounced 2rP instead of 2~\ But the thought of 1 Cor. 6,2
is ill suited to this context. Nor is it probable that yi here means the admini-
stration of justice in any other sense than in vv. 10.26. More difficult, from the
lexicographical point of view, is the rendering give judgment (stricdy ': justifica-
tion), AV judgment was given. LUTHER's free translation (Gericht halten fiir) 25
amounts to the same. [Cf. WELLH.'s explanatory notes on 4) 23 in the new
English Version]. Marti thinks that Ewald's insertion of MB^tM 3m is con-
firmed by vv. 14.26.27.

Further, he considers lipnn a Hebraism, and substitutes Uprm (cf. v. 18).
KAUTZSCH (§ 38,3), however, is certainly right in not taking exception to 'nn 30
which is the only vocalization that is attested. [The ]lt3p nnB instead of nnB
may be due to dJUo\ as in Assyr. usehnisv for usafcnisv&c.; see Haupt, Sum.
Familiengesetze, p. 63, n. 2; DELITZSCH, AG, § 34, c, a. — P. H.]

i.l. state- p. 201) that ifl with the plural pnj? does not express the mean-
ing of the author, who intended the dual. This view, however, is erroneous. The 35
number of about 3T/2 years is one having relation (cf. ZAT '85, pp. 237.239) both
to history and to faith. The expression, therefore, is purposeh made indefinite.
Cf. 8,14; 9,27; 12,7 and GES.-KAUTZSCH26, § 88.
(26) Instead of the 3JV given by IIaiix and THEILE, and in many other editions, Bar

and GlNSB. rightly read 3JV; but it does not commend itself to regard this Qal 40
imperf. (KAUTZSCH, § 43,1, examples adb), with Delitzsch, Bar, and Behrm.,
as a contraction from 3mm.

8 (1) For -|X»*6a, see on 5,30.

(5) G. Hoffmann [ZAT '83, pp. 95 f.) would pronounce not mm but mm, following 45
the Syriac vocalization [lii*»; cf. rvi»n= lioa^, ninK = l*u-]. He refers to 4,8.17,
taking for granted that mm = -NIC; but this is not certain, mm is established
here and in v. 8 as the reading of ill, both by Bar and GlNSB. GlNSB.'s ^"28
JTn p minx, however, in v. 8 decides in favor of the reading of C>.

(8) mm seems to have crept in by mistake from v. 5. It can neither be rendered as 50
an adverbial accusative in honor, nor taken as a construct plural. Instead of it
we should probably read, with GRA.TZ and others, the word nnnx, as expressed
by (6 (exepa). According to SWETE exepa is not found in 0; KAUTZSCH (Bei-

7,6—17 -~*J3-<®-3» ©ant'ef -*§-©»BS»- 31

for \v. 4 and 5 Arabic 0-«-vsl uqimat, which is an exact parallel, and this would
seem to be preferable.

I'.i.hkm'. again finds glosses hen'. But we do not gain anything by eliminating

nyjn. which, it is true, can be dispensed with. The first "'iriN in the enumer-
ation is well distinguished by this addition from the ,"inx which follows in v. 6. 5
Still les.s probable is the elimination of nopn "in "lDt?bl, for these words no more
mean that this beast was set aside, than n'rDJ (v. 4) means that the first was
easily made away with; only faulty exegesis could regard the one as a gloss on
the other.

The absence of the , of the plural in the Qere n25 (cf v. 4) is not enough to 10
prove that i\\ intended the singular; cf. KAUTZSCH, § 55,4.

BAR writes in vv. 6 and 7 nrj2, but GlNSB., S TRACK, and Marti rightly prefer
nnK2, which is better authenticated than the later spelling 1H2; cf. 2,39.
j] better than the npnn given by some authorities is npns, which Bar, GlNSBURi;,
and STRACK give in their text; cf. KAUTZSCH, § 46, 3, b. 15

Notwithstanding np"?D in v. 20 ill requires here np^D; cf. KAUTZSCH, § 25, b.

BAR and GlNSB. write the Qere {cf v. 19 and 2,33) ynTa, while NORZI prefers
,|,-i,i,2; cf Kautzsch, § 53,2 end. Marti considers the Qere a correct emenda-
tion of the Kethib; contrast NdLDEKE (see on 2,33).

For the Qcre nnpynx, which Marti substitutes for the Kethib, cf. v. 20, and 20
see on 5,5.
w The Qere rightly reads ypbx (cf 4, 14) instead of the faulty Kethib CPE^S. But its
substitution of the Hebraizing form }22"l for the good Aramaic ]}2"i (= vjLai Acts
21,20) is needless; cf KAUTZSCH, § 65,4. The spelling of the Kcthib without
Dagesh forte Theile, p. 1187) is erroneous. 25

11 GUNKEL (p. 324, n. 1) states that the text of v. iia is mutilated. He thinks it
must have contained the judgment upon the eleventh horn. But this view seems
to be due to a misunderstanding. Nor can we admit BEHRMANN's contention
that the first two words have arisen out of v. nb by dittography. It is true that
the position of mn ntn before pnN2 is somewhat unusual, but it does not seem 30
advisable to strike out the two words, seeing that elsewhere also the author
affects solemn resumption or reiteration of what has been said; cf c. g. 2,38;
4,33; 5,11.23; 8,2; 9,2.I9ff.

(12) On (5's rendering xai xou; kukXuj auxou &Treo'Tr|ce xf|? etouaiac; aurujv, see Ml-
CHAELis, Orientalische lubliothek, iv, p. 41. 35

(13" NESTLE suggests by instead of ill DJ>, pointing to (5 eiri tujv veqpeAuiv; but as 0
has ueTa tujv vecpe\ujv, the emendation would seem to be unnecessary.

(15) Instead of Bar's nana (pp. 79f.), Hahn, Theile, and GiNSB. read, with most edi-
tions, nana; Kautzsch (§ 54,3, a, p) prefers nana, with suffix, rather than stat.
nnph. nana. Probably still better is NOLDEKE's and BEVAN's nana. WEISS finds 40
here the word pj2, which occurs in the Targums and the Talmud (cf ZDMG
32,754', and reads nan pj2 on this account instead of nana Nia2. This ingenious
conjecture, which is also mentioned by GlNSB. and adopted by BUHL, is placed
by MARTI in the text; but as the occurrence in our book of a foreign word
going- back to the Sanscrit nidh&na 'receptacle, case' is by no means impos- 45
sible, there is hardly sufficient ground for such alteration of the text; cf. NOL-
DEKE (Gott. gel. Anz. 1884, p. 1022) and Behrmann.

(17) GlNSBURG and MARTI rightly put the fern, pax in the text. This reading is not
only suggested by the Qere, but even in the Kethib it is better authenticated than
the masculine form pax. 50

fO^O is again needlessly questioned (cf.S, 21) by GUNKEL, on the authority of
60, whose puoiXelai is easily understood as a free translation. True, we obtain
by a slight change of the consonants ]]?/>?, and BEHRM. considers the replacing of

30 -°H3«®"®* ©ant'ef -0§-€>e**>- 6,20—7,5

For Vflty mi nnitsn, see on 2,1. It might be well to add that rtiltf = sleep
has also been found by NOLDEKE (ZDMG '93, p. 98) in the Inscription of Hadad
at Zinjirli (cf Driver's Leviticus, p. 26), while D. H. Muller reads bnvf in 1. 23
instead of nit?.

(20) In Kautzsch's translation (p. 898) we are told that at daybreak is, perhaps, an ex- 5
planatory gloss to the preceding expression with the dawn. Behrm. and Marti,
on the other hand, declare positively that xrtiia is merely a gloss. The two ex-
pressions K1S1BW and KHii are synonymous but not tautological. MEINHOLD,
therefore, seems to be right, in regarding «nii3 as a closer determination of the
more general N"t5"i£B\ Against the needless change of the text in the present 10
passage we need hardly point to our author's favorite practice of heaping syno-
nyms; it is sufficient to state that, of the two expressions, Nrtii is unquestion-
ably the stronger one, as the meaning of the stem is brightness (cf Kautzsch,

54,3,c). Those who hunt for glosses will do well to remember the fate of
the well-known hypothesis ofGRIESBACH, who committed the gross, though very 15
pardonable, error of declaring superfluous one of the two synonymous ex-
pressions at even, when the sun set, in Mark 1,32 (cf. Matth. 8,16 and Luke
4,4o)-

(21) Mar 1 1 conjectures that we must read, as the third word of the verse, ^tTiT in-
stead of ^JTin1?. He refers to NESTLE, Marginalien, p. 41 ; but there would seem 20
to be no sufficient reason for this change.

(25) MARTI thinks that we should, perhaps, read the passive forms Viyrn and ve" ;
but this is unnecessary.

(1) See on 5,30. Marti thinks that the words of M, nase'e-ty ntftn *}}m had crept 25
into the text from 4.2; but this view is not well founded.

(2) MARTI wrongly cancels the words "ittNl bw\ "iP. He considers them a gloss
because they are not expressed in (50.

(4) For O'tc asi, cf. 4,14.

The oracularly obscure language affected in the visions of our Book, should 30
not mislead the textual critic to rush to the assistance of the exegete. GUNKEL
(Schopfung und Chaos, Gottingen, 1895, P- 327> note 2) makes this mistake in
suggesting that there is a corruption in lB'IO. His argument is, that the destruc-
tion of the dominion of the first beast does not come until v. 12, and hence the
plucking out of its wings is unsuited to the context, which deals with the be- 35
-inning of his dominion over the world. Our author does not write so awk-
wardly as to predict (cf GUNKEL, p. 189) here, under the reign of Nebuchad-
nezzar's son (v. 1), anything else but the downfall of the Babylonian empire. It
is just the unmistakable ID'HO which gives us our positive clue through the ob-
scurities which follow; as the lion heart (2 Sam. 17,10), so the eagle's wings are 40
lost to the winged lion of Babylon. After the figure of the beast once so proud,
but which now, set upon its feet, can fly no longer, and must toilsomely walk,
we have in v. 5 the figure of the bear, tilted on one side and unable to keep its
balance.

GlESEBRECHT (Gott. get. Anz. 1895, p. 598) erroneously refers a man's heart to 45
4,31, and inserts, on the basis of the words I lifted up mine eyes unto heaven
in 4,31, here in our passage: NJ?"IN p n^pi fl'l*?, as though the writer wanted
to establish the identity of the beast and Nebuchadnezzar.

(5) On account of the context (cf KAUTZSCH, § 45,3,5) the transitive form n&J?n,
which is here required by ill (cf Bar, p. 78), must be transformed into the Hofal 50
which we find in v. 4. This passive, with or without H, has some attestation ac-
cording to GlNSBURG. Marti (p. 60) sees in 'pn a Hofal; he considers the in-
distinct vowel -3- a modification of an original u. N6LDEKE, however, compares

5,27—6,19 -~>H3<^* ©antcf •e3-©*s?*>*- 29

to conform the words to JOto (Kautzsch, § 29, 3, a). Nor should ]"P"]S, the plural of
D"15 (KAUTZSCH, § 54,3,3,0), which ill intended, and which plays upon the word
Persians ^6,29), be displaced by the participial form rp"]5, as though this latter,
like r"]OfJ in 3,4 &c, took the place of a passive construction.

BAR (p. 76) and GlNSB. read, with NORZI, the singular x;:?K'» instead of the less 5
well attested Received Text, N^TX'e. This avoidance of the dual, is perhaps merely
pedantic {cf. KAUTZSCH, § 51,1, note", and is contrary to Hebrew usage, cf. Job
6,2. Yet the form preferred by NORZI occurs also in Mandaic, [fcOJKND; cf.
NOLDEKE Mandaische Granunatik^ \ 124. NOLDEKE thinks that the * is a trace
of the dual ending in D^tKb]. 10

(29) For Ti'jn, sec on v. 7.

(30; IXtfK^a is nad by Bar and Ginsburg here and in 7,1; 8,i; but in the editions
of HAHN and THEILE it stands in 7 , 1 only. It should be corrected to ISKB^a,
according to 5,1.22.29; cf. 10, 1.
1 I laiius the Mede seems to be based on a confusion of the destruction of Nineveh 15
l 06' and the overthrow of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus (538) with the
conquest of Babylon under Darius Hystaspis (520). This theory, which I ad-
vanced more than ten years ago, is discussed by I'RINCE, /. c. p. 42. - - P. H.J

The statement of the king's age has been considered strange, but without suffi-
cient reason. Its purpose is to indicate the brief duration of the Median king- 20
dom. From the arbitrary text of (0 BEHRM. obtains a singular clause, through
the corruption and misunderstanding of which the 62 years of our text are sup-
posed to have arisen; but his method is too subtle.

(2) Here and in v. 4 SWETE gives as the reading of© after £ko.tov eiKoai a ctttu, 25
which is derived from Esth. 1,1. It is the reading of the Codex Chisianus
and of the Hexaplar Syriac, but in the time of St. Jerome both G5 and 0 agreed
with ill: cf. Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, iv, p. 10.

(4) STRACK, too, rightly points JVtn?, although some codices read JVCJ?. The word
is neither an intransitive participle nor a perfect, but a part. pass, {cf NOLDEKE, 30
G'dtt. gel. Anzeigen, 1884, p. 1019).

(8) In oxotaei PaaiXtKrj 0 rightly connects DJJ5 as construct with N2^a. By adding here
and in v. 13 kcu avGpujTrou to ixapa ttuvtoc; Beou, he avoids the intentional omission
of COK1 in (D. There tWNl is omitted in order to restrict 1J!2 to prayer.

1 i Bar rightly prefers Kin to the usual pronunciation Kin, retained by GlNSBURG. 35
(13) The absence of any respectful form of address is quite in keeping with the con-
text. We are certainly not justified in changing the text to conform with v. 7 or
3,9. (5 reads AapeTe (3aaiA.eu, while 0 is content with paat\eu.

[ 4 BEHRM. takes exception to the "H which, as in v. 6, introduces the direct dis-
course, and would strike it out. This, however, is unnecessary; cf. 5,7, and 4°
especially 2,25, where further "H's similarly follow upon the ,rl recitativum.
(15) The *bvp adopted by Bar 'p. 78) as being required by the Masorah is rightly
rejected by KAUTZSCH, § 6o,3,b. Of the two current readings GlNSB. prefers
*^M?.. BEVAN, however, writes still better, with NOLDEKE, ^J?» cf. 5,7).

(18) For nWH, see on 3,13. 45

The spelling ncb» deserves decided preference. Kautzsch (§ 45, note 1 , d), with
good reason, regards net? as an error of JH, although Bar and GlNSB. retain it;
but his preference of the scriptio plena T\t^B is less commendable, cf. n"i 5,20.

BAR writes nenn cf. KAUTZSCH, § 37, 3, a), and, in agreement with (5, nj?}J>;
GlNSB., on the other hand, gives the inferior, though usual, pronunciations nonn 50
and nptj;; 0 also reads the singular nj?TJ?, which, in point of sense, is less exact.

(19) BEVAN and MARTI read ]Jnbl instead of the uttuE \e-fouevov ]irn] whose meaning
is uncertain; cf. 5,2.3.23.

28 -<*f3«©-s$- ©anuf ■^•©»eH«- 5 , 1 5 — 2 5

ciples here but verbal substantives in the nominative, like HEpO cover [cf. the
remarks on HD30 great omentum in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars,
No. 114, July, 1894, p. ii5a, note 9]. This view, however, is not probable.

(15) Marti thinks that we should perhaps read riilJHirP, instead of b with the inf.
after the impf. {cf, however, § 124, b). This is not necessary. 5

(16) For ^2in, see on 2,10.

(17) Notwithstanding mp3 (2,6) Bar and GlNSB. here point *]rv3t23; cf KAUTZSCH,
§ 64,3. Only one of the two vocalizations of M would seem to be correct;
ANDREAS, however, (MARTI, p. 71) thinks both possible, so far as the Persian

is concerned. 10

(19) The mispronunciation xne in 0 still appears in Theile's edition of the Hebrew
Bible (Leipzig, 1849). 3's pcrcuticbat is based on 0's stutttev, and Luther in
turn was misled by 3; but AV has correctly kept alive. For the Hafel parti-
ciple Kntt, cf. Kautzsch, § u,3,b,Y. [There is, of course, no elision of the
second stem-consonant in JUiJ-io; the doubling of the n is based on the analogy 15
of the verbs 3"B; nor is Heb. 2b;=DiD,) but it is an analogical formation {cf.
GESEN.-KAUTZSCH26, p. 174, note 1). The primitive form of NTI to live is ha iiua
{cf. (\\£»<D\, ^Ijko*., KHVn). The final ^, however, became ^ owing to the
preceding intransitive /-vowel: ^_^~^-, thus making the stem a verbum mediae
geminatae {cf. WRIGHT-DE G< i 166, I); 179, remark b). The stem of <*-£&- 20
serpent, on the other hand, is ^52- {cf J-?0-*1). — P. H.]

(20) 53 appear to pronounce nij?,l instead of M n-ifj""! ; see on 2,7; 4,15.

(21) The Q'-'re rightly reads Wtf instead of the IO'thib *)&, or as GlNSB. adds, like
Kautzsch {Gram. p. 175, ad p. 89), '"IBf. The assumption of a mere mistake in
the separation of the words (KAUTZSCH, § 47,g,3,a) is hardly adequate. 25

The wild asses are mentioned here, as BEVAN says, as a type of savagery only
{cf Job 39,5-8). CALVIN's expansion of the expression into an exile of the king
among barbarians was rightly rejected by HlTZlG. Wild asses live far from the
dwellings of men, where fodder is given to cattle, and so HAUPT's suggestion
to read mj) (cf Joel 1, 18) instead of NTl? seems very plausible [cf PRINCE, 30
/. c, p. 1 1 1]. However, I should not be inclined to substitute K,"ny for the tradi-
tional smy.
22 GlNSBURG and STRACK point n^Stfn, while some of the MSS collated by
S TRACK read n"?S»n ; so, too, MARTI.
(23) For the order of the metals, see on 2,35. 35

0 rightly takes Tib, against the accents, as referring to KnfjKbl (KAUTZSCH, § 84, 1).
To explain b as = the Latin penes {cf Jer. 10,23) i-s lo° far-fetched. Still less
does it seem advisable to strike it out.

The fact that ©03 only express Kin once does not warrant the assertion that
the word occurred but once in their texts; the impressive repetition is one of the 40
beauties of the original.

[The first K3fc seems to be the passive participle of N3n to count, while the second
X30 represents the status absolutus of K\)tt mina. The words |,msi bpn KIO Kin
mean: There has been counted {cf d^Xf* destiny, predestination), a mina, a shekel,
and halfminas, the half-minas {parsin or, perhaps, perdsin) alluding to the divi- 45
sion of the empire between the Medes and the Persians, the mina (tnene) refer-
ring to Nebuchadnezzar, followed by the shekel 'teqel), the sixtieth part of the
mina, symbolizing Belshazzar, the unworthy successor of the great Babylonian
king. Compared with Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar was not only a m» p D1S
but a nin p bpVfl See HAUPT, Johns Hopkins University Circulars. No. 58, p. 104 50
(July 1887); PRINCE, Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, Baltimore, 1893, p. 8. — P. H.]

Bar and GlNsr.. rightly adopt the pronunciations bpR and ^D*JM. The excep-
tional vocalization b$F\ and D"1B (v. 28), instead of ^pn and D^D, is chosen in order

5,1 — 12 -oH3«cs-s*- ©ontcf •*§■©»«**>- 27

5 The very free rendering of 3 t7 unusquisque secundum suam bibebat aetatem

does not warrant an alteration of the text, although 0 (k<xi tuvujv) prefixed 1 to
the final word nn#, connecting it with v. 2.

(2) [Kl&n D"-: not mean when the wine began to taste, but at the command of

the wine, under the influence of the wine; see PRINCE, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Ufihar- 5
sin, Baltimore, 1893, P- nS below]. As an indication of the arbitrary method
of (5 the omission of the wives and concubines "evidently out of regard for de-
trum" (BEHRM.) deserves mention; cf 6,19 the omission of the dancing-women.
.s-:r:- should perhaps be inserted, with 0-3, after Karri; cf. v. 2.

To strike out the words n NrV?N n'2, which are wanting in v. 2, on the authority of 10
3 de tcmplo quod f Herat in Jerusalem is questionable; for 0 has tou Geou.
- As to the (Vie r~t:. intended to replace the Kethib ^£3, ef. 7,20, and K.AUTZSCH,
23 . 2 ; 98 , 2 , c. The use of the masc. form for both genders is a peculiarity of
Bibl. Aramaic, which is met with also in Nabatean inscriptions, cf. DRIVER-ROTH-
S 1 1 in, Einleitung, p. 540 English edition, p. 472^. The feminine form, however, 15
was known to the- Masorites owing to its currency in the Targums, and was
therefore substituted in the Qere.

(6; \-ili» for y~lby \*}U> is considered by BEHRM. so harsh that he would correct our
expression in accordance with v. 9. This is also preferred by KAUTZSCH, § 89,2
and NOLDEKE, Lit. Centra/b/att, 1896, No. 9, who declares § 4,p in STRACK's 20
Abriss, to be superfluous. BEVAN gives 1J# as an alternative; but cf. EwALD,
§ 315, b, note.

The spelling rtn22*ix is not unsupported by evidence; still, GlNSB. is right in
preferring, with Bar, nnsSlX; cf KAUTZSCH, § 60,1.

(7) The meaning of the foreign word, pronounced here and in vv. 16.29 m the Qere 25
«r;r?n = Syr. jJuiaooi (cf Gks. Thes.), is sufficiently established by the word
uuviUKn,c, by which (50 translate it. The derivation from the Greek, however,
adopted by KAUTZSCH, §64,4, is improbable. In fact, uavidxr|<; appears rather to
be derived from xracn. It seems necessary, therefore, to fall back, with BEHRM.
p. ix, upon the Sanscrit rndnika. On the other hand, we have no certain tradi- 30
tion as to the consonants and the pronunciation of the KL'thib. BAR in fact de-
clares p. 74 the forms of the Received Text, KSUton and SOiien, to be incorrect, and
pronounces N:yi?~; while GlNSB. decides in favor of Norton, and adds further,
as Kethib forms, x;:iert and Jttiaon. According to Mar lis Porta, pp. 31*. 60* ,
the Kethib is to be read, with ANDREAS, N3}V?n. 35

7 16.29 (0 renders eSouaia xoO xpixou u^potx Tf|c ftamXeiac, but 0 has rightly Tpixoc, and
in v. 29 apxovra xpirov. In addition to the ordinary 'Jvbri (2,39), KAUTZSCH
65,1, note 3 and § 66,1) assumes here two by-forms, namely "rrbp, v. 7, and
NH^P, vv. 16.29. But it is not probable that Kr^fl is "an abnormal stat. emphat.
for 'JWI tertius." Moreover, it would conflict in v. 29 with the prevailing rule 40
'Kautzsch. - . Hence it would seem best to read in v. 7 (cf Ges.-Buhl*2)
'"P>, and, in the same way, substituting , for K, in vv. 16.29. BEHRM. prefers Vi^ri
in all three passages; DE Goeje (Theol. Tijdschr. 1885, p. 71) would point in

v. 7, "phr\.

For ybby, see on 4,4. 45

For the Qerl "Vf ;< 1 on 4,15. Bar (cf. p. 90) and GlNSB., with the Occi-
dentals or Palestinians, place it in the text, and attribute N"|tf£l to the Babylo-
nians as a KThib.
(10) As vv. 9 and 10 begin in (50 with the same word, Marti thinks that pIK has

dropped out in M at the beginning of v. 10. 50

We should certainly pronounce, with 3 "itf&B and tOBte, cf KAUTZSCH, § 40,3
note, instead of "lB*E>tt and JOBto of M. The participles do not suit the context.
HlTZlG believed (Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1837, p. 927) that ill intended no parti

26 -~>K3«©-S*- ©ant'ef •$§■©««{*>- 4,27 — 33

For ]^J», accented on the ultima, not on the penult, cf. KAUTZSCH, §§ 15 ,a;
57, a, p; contrast Ges.-Buhl12.
(27) Bar (pp. 73.92) and GlNSB. write, with Ben-Asher, njT33. In spite of the good
evidence in support of this strange form, nn^a is to be preferred, following Ben-
Xaphtali ; cf. KAUTZSCH, § 1 5 , e and Strack's Cod. Erfurtensis and Cod. Jemenensis. 5

Bar and GlNSB. rightly read *]j5P instead of the Received Text *]pn; cf.
Kautzsch, § 57, a, a.

(30) (6 has only the comparison with the eagle and the lion, 0 only that with the
lion and the birds, and in inverted order; both are needless departures from ill.

(31) The rO"]3, read by Bar and Ginsb. without Metheg, should be written rona or, 10.
with STRACK, n?"i3; cf Kautzsch, § 9 end.

(32) This verse is taken even by 0 (die; oubev i\ofiaQ)-\oa-v) and 5 in such a way (n*?3
= N^3) that the negative particle would stand as a pure substantive — a unique
case (cf. Kautzsch, §67, 1). Michaelis (Anm.fiir Unge/ekrfe, p. 41) departs from
the vowel-points, and endeavors to bring out the sense abide under /lis care mid 1 5
dominion. If the consonants be altered, )?3 might find support in Is. 51,6, unless
we are to understand gnats in that passage. BEVAN, Behrmann, Buhl con-
tent themselves with closely connecting the negation with the participle; the
sense thus obtained, sucli us arc not to be regarded, does not seem flat to them.

(33) Notwithstanding "1J5^ in v. 27, ill requires ^b, and Bar, Ginsb., and Martj (cf 20

20) so write in this case, but erroneously; cf. Kautzsch, § 57, a, a and Strack's
Abriss, p. 20.* ROSEN.MULLER rightly takes TM mn as the subject. The intentio-
nal aggregation of the words, in which in v. ^3 after 31rr ^j; (v. 31), "^j? mn'1 is twice
repeated, is in keeping with the solemnity. According to BEVAN this homceote-
leuton has misled the Syriac translator to omit 'ty 3UV TM •'inn Vu3^» Ip^l. Behrm. 25
thinks the text overloaded. He tries to improve it, and, misled by the free trans-
lation of 0 (eic xf|v xiuqv Tr\c, fiaaiXdaq uou n.\9ov), he proposes as an emenda-
tion riVin (min seems to be a misprint) 7 instead of ,-nn. "Pin, however, is used in
vv. 31.34 in quite a different sense. According to Levy's Chald. Worterb. Tin
(Behrm. writes Tin) 7 occurs only in the Jerus. Targums for "itrj; but a new word 30
for return is hardly probable, inasmuch as previously and subsequently we
find y\7\. Following (5 kou r) bota uou direboGn. uoi (a translation, however, which
is quite arbitrary) J. D. MlCHAELIS suggested the emendation Tn vnsbo 1p,l.

Marti does not approve of BEHRMANN's conjecture, but his own suggestion
is not much better. He remarks: If ,"nn together with 1 is not to be looked upon 35
as a gloss, following v. 27, one might be inclined to substitute ^VjN or '■jTinM obtained.

Bar and GlNSB. both write J1JD', with virtual sharpening of the y. The ordinary
editions have pj>9*, against the Masorah. The Codex Derenburgii collated by
STRACK reads the Qal, ]iy^; so, too, Marti, as a Pael of this verb does not
occur. Of Gixsb.'s n:prtn and Bar's nipnn the latter is the true pronunciation. 40
GlNSB.'s reading, however, represents the genuine Masoretic tradition as shown
by the majority of MSS; cf. KAUTZSCH, §34. Marti thinks that the strange
3 p. fern. sing, ropnn may be explained if we make \~i13btt the subject, and read
>bv instead of by.

Bar's spelling 'nn, which recurs in 5,20 in nmn as well as in similar cases is 45
not followed by Gin.m;., who prints nmn with the common editions.

Pronounce f?^no as in 3,25.

rRACK, too, writes nTin "nn, with n, but NoLDEKE in his review of Strack's 50
book [Li/. Centralblatt, 1S96, No. 9) remarks that in so old a document it must be
an, not a n. I must, therefore, retract the statement, made in my review ofBEHR-
M\nn's Commentary [Theol. J.il.-Zeit. 1895, col. 357), that BEHRMANN's Tin is a mis-
print.

4,12—24 -oB3*®-§<«- ©antcf f%-&-Si*~- 25

4 (12.20.23) With KAUTZSCH, § 59, c, we should pronounce "i|?j;, following the Syriac form,
instead of ill "ij?5; ; <f-7,9 ">jn. Both GlNSBURG and STRACK, however, point "1J3J?.

(12.20) BEHRM. regards S11 *i X.ST"3 as a gloss intended to paraphrase, in better Ara-
maic, the expression Kjnx 3»JD, not only in v. 12, where Xjnx 3t?jn after npVn
closes the verse, but also in v. 20, where these two words are wanting after npbn. 5
But 2E>5? (^ vv. 22.29.30; 5,21) would need no paraphrasing, and the text sup-
ported by 0 employs the synonymous expressions in such a way that they desig-
nate primarily the dwellings and only in the second instance, food. After the
band of iron and brass had been mentioned, which might naturally suggest an
enclosed space, the reference to green fields would seem in place. The as- 10
sumption of a gloss is as needless here as in 6,5. Noldeke rightly considers

it strange that the same mistake should occur twice.
(13.14) The Qere seems to be right in reading NtfJX (as e.g. in 2,43; 4,22.29) instead
of the Kethib NC'iJX, although in the Nabatean inscriptions En3N occurs instead
. of C3.x. Noldeke decides against Marti in favor of the Kethib. 15

(14) m2T ~iy appears to be a transcriptional error for mn by; cf. 2,30. Notwithstand-
ing Kautzsch, §69,10, Behrm. rejects the emendation, and holds that as "\ by
designates purpose, so "\ ij? designates result (so thai); still the assumption of an
assimilation of the b (Kautzsch, § 11,2) seems more natural.

Although in v. 14 the Heb. plural form D'tMK (but cf. 7,10) is recognized by 20
SX (see on 2, 10), Kautzsch (§ 51,2) and Behrm. are probably right in refusing
to ascribe the Hebrew plural ending to the author. They believe it to be due
to the thoughtlessness of a copyist. In that case, the collective singular KtfJX,
which is used elsewhere in the Book, would be the original reading here also.
In 7, 10, instead of the Kethib D'S^X, we should take the Qere \*pbtt. 25

The Kethib replaced by the Qere T^bv should not be pronounced, with BAR,
^bv, but 'alaih; see on 2,4b. GlNSBURG writes: TDD vfys IX T\lbv. A similar
case with this same suffix occurs again in 5,21; 7,4.5.6.7.8.19.20.
(15.16) Qere needlessly (this is also Marti's opinion) rntrs instead of K*l»S; cf. 5,8, and

see on 2,7. 30

(16.21) The Kethib VOfi is contracted by the Qere to nip; cf. Kautzsch, § n,3,b, and
DRIVER-ROTHSTEIN, Einleitung, p. 540 [English edition, p. 472], where illustrations
from Nabatean inscriptions are given in which, as BEVAN remarks, X retained
its consonantal sound.

(19) There is a gross error involved in the Qere rO"1 instead of the Kethib JT5*i or, as 35
Bar prefers and GlNSB. allows, rvo"). The Qere might pass, at best, as an erroneous
form (see on 2,35b) for n2"i, i. e. third pers. sing. fem. But the context here re-
quires the second pers. sing, masc, and this cannot (Bar, p. 72 notwithstanding)
be used in abbreviated form after the analogy of rc.T (see on 2,23), but occurs
in X"b verbs (cf Kautzsch, § 47, d) only with the unabbreviated afformative 40
ending n, or even nn; cf. 2,31.

(21) The Qere is right in reading nerp, as the Kethfb can be nothing but a mere tran-
scriptional error, (Kautzsch, § 47,g,i,a), though Bar and Ginsb. attempt to
pronounce it IVIStt.

(24) Kautzsch (§ 57, a, P) explains the Qere as a singular, Behrm. as a plural; both, 45
however, are agreed that the Kethib, which, with Bar, they pronounce "^tpn, is
a singular. Hitzig and BEVAN see in the Kethib, which stands for •pen, a plural
of 'tan. As the context unquestionably requires a plural form, we must probably
explain both Kethib and Qere as plurals, and as such GlNSB.'s reading of the
Kethib ^J'cn, for which he gives as Qere ijan, is no doubt intended. 50

BAR, GlNSBURG, STRACK, and MARTI read TjriJW (Kautzsch, § 56,a,p,2).
This form is better attested than 'sjriJWI which can hardly be intended as singular
i 76,1).
Dan. a

24 -osa*©-^ ©antef •^•©»sho- 4,6— ii

4 that Noldeke (Zz/. Centralbl. 1896, col. 703) calls this explanation of Marti's

£7>/tv/ hiibschen Fund. Noldeke considers the common comparison of n "?np i?3
with alldieweil impossible. But if Marti's view were correct, M would have
had to write in Prov. 24,12 1^»S3 instead of 1^5?S3.

■ ' -hit t:it «

(6) Marti, both in Kautzsch's Beilagen and in his Porta, p. 26*, follows 0, and 5
inserts Jttotf before Mm, as though this word were indispensable to the context;
he thinks that mistaken imitation of c. 2, where Daniel must guess the dream
itself, may well have led to the omission. But the cxkougov added by 0 is of
no more value than the date in 3,1 (cf. BEHRM., p. xxxii, 2). The explanatory
1 before mtPB, which is of frequent occurrence in the Book of Daniel, means 10
that is, or namely (German und zwar), as e. g. in 2, 16. 18; 4, 10.22; 7,20; 8, 10.

GlESEBRECHT, Gbtt. gel. Ans. 1895, P- 598, proposes to read sins instead of
Mtn. He points to the elision of the N in 8,8, and makes the ingenious remark
that PPWB presupposes only the singular form "fibn, and in the Book of Daniel
only nh^b or ""UN"! are met with after Mm. His emendation, however, would seem 15
to be unnecessary.
(8.17) As the words Mm, and 7\\X\ (v. 7), and rrm (v. 17) occur in the immediate context, it
is natural to derive the. obscure Flflim from ntn = behold '(v. 20), and to render it ap-
pearance (with Siegfr.-Stade and Kautzsch, § 55 end, or §61 ,4, b, note), although
the form is doubtful. In both passages 3 has aspcctus, without the divergence in 20
v. 17 from ill which appears in Kautzsch (Beilagen), who supplies ryi'D between
b and bi against the evidence of 0. In (5 we find in v. 8 the double translation
Spaaic; and kuto? (0, kuto<; only); in v. 17, on the contrary, opacuc. only (0, kuto<;).
In addition to the statement of the height of the tree, some expression for its
breadth seems to be called for; therefore 0 reads kuto? and LUTHER : breitete 25
sich aus bis (= spread itself out unto; cf. Hitzig's Umfang = circumference and
Ewald's I 'inkrcis = circuit), though these renderings are, perhaps, merely in-
ferred from the context. But when HlTZlG and even Ges.-Buhl12 combine
mm with Arabic *>\<f>~ surface, we cannot help thinking how Renan compared
the Arabic lexicon to chaos, for in it avec un pen de bonne volontc on pent 30
trouvcr tout ce que I' on desire. It is better in such a case to fall back, with
Behrm., on the emendation HYim = its compass, although Tim is generally used
in the Targums as an adverb, and, when doubled, corresponds to the Hebrew
i'OD. Kautzsch {Die Heil. Schrzft des AT, p. 894) has shrunk from translating
nmm, and remarks upon it: "Literally: its appearance. Probably the text is 35
corrupt; we should expect: its branches or the like." The spreading of the
boughs (daboi) which we find in the Graecus Venetus is guesswork (cf. GES.,
Thes.) just as fi's oi x\dboi auxoO xw urjKet Ubc; axabiuuv xpidKOvra. Pure con-
jecture, however, obtains its philological justification through the following in-
genious emendation of the text. Haupt proposes to let the words nnim and 40
iTfiS? in vv. 8f. and i/f. change places, so that the text would read: SttD'1 nam
irate r!33Kl VS» nnim2 :xyn«5 ^4 r^D^ .TBI)6!1 Xs»b6 its height reached unto heaven,
and its foliage to the end of the whole earth. Its appearance was fair, arid its
fruit abundant. XTim would then correspond to the Heb. ns*)0 in Gen. 2,9, where
similarly the appearance is mentioned before the fruit (bsXD1? 31131 nsiD1? "i»ni 45
pleasant to look at and good to eat).

(9) Instead of the Kcthib jnr, the Qere, following v. 18, prefers the fern, form \y\V,
but needlessly.
(11) ill does not point here THnWB, but mwnn. Strack keeps the traditional reading;

Marti, however, rejects mmnn as a Hebraism. In view of vv. 9.18; 7,28; Jer. 50
io.ii Noldeke remarks that ,nin,inri would seem to be preferable, adding that
he has met occasionally in Syriac tahtai as a preposition, but always without
personal suffixes (Go//, gel. Anz. 1884, p. 1015).

3,27—4,5 ~«4$3<^ ©ante? «§-©»et*>- 23

following KAUTZSCH, § 57, a, a. Siegfr.-Stade, on the other hand, read ^on in
both passages, while THEILE and GiNSB. give ^nn in 3,25, but in 6,24: "pan.
(27. 2S) The singular form ]ini3tfa, preferred by the Qere in both verses, is inadmissible.
The Kethib yiiTCBte is perfecdy unexceptionable. The Qere is a pedantic infer-
ence drawn from "|ln^«"i by the Palestinian scribes only (Bar, p. 90). 5
(29) The Qere, following 6,5, reads && error. Although Kautzsch (§ 61, 4, b) still
regards the Kethib T\bv as a transcriptional error, it might be the equivalent of
nbxtf; cf. 4,14. The Kethib, for which GiNSB. gives the three pronunciations
mentioned below, was probably read vho (Hitzig, Bevan). Hence, it should
neither be pronounced, with Bar, 7\bti, nor, with Kautzsch and Behrm., rbf, 10
as if on a parity with nytf. Instead of resorting to a supposititious parallel form
of ^tf, it is much simpler, surely, to assume contraction (cf. 4,16.34, and
KAUTZSCH, § n,3,b). An analogous case, pointed out by Hitzig, would be the
Heb. nbtr in 1 S. 1, 17. Marti thinks that the X had been omitted by the scribe,
and subsequently added between the lines; afterwards, perhaps, it was joined to 15
111; cf. v. 28.

(31) A date is also wanting before the fifth and sixth of the ten sections of our Book;
yet Ewald, resting on the fancies of (6, whose arbitrariness in Dan. 3-6 cer-
tainly passes all bounds, felt justified (Proph.2 iii, pp. 364. 367 f.) in supplying the 20
following sentence before v. 31 : In the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King
Nebuchadnezzar, King Xcbuchadnezzar wrote thus to all the peoples, nations, and
tongues that dwell upon the whole earth.
4 (1) 0 omits the date, favored here, but not in 3,31, by (5; and, in spite of 3,1, pays

no attention to the words "Etouc; oKTWKaibeKcxTou xf]c; paaiXeiaq Naf3. €lirev. 25

Bar and Strack read "TPaa, but Ginsburg and Marti (§ 76,0) seem to be
right in preferring Was, which is much better attested.

(4) In place of the Kethib ^bby^, the Qere prefers, here and in 5,8, ybv. For the fre-
quent occurrence of uncontracted forms (5,10), cf. Bevan and Behrm. ad loc,
also DALMAN, pp. 272.274. 30

(5) We should perhaps, with J. D. Michaelis, pronounce 1j>1 instead of itt TO). The
sense yet another [cf. 2,11 ; Gen. 37,9; Deut. 19,9), also preferred by. Bevan,
seems easier than until at last, or until (as) the last. The reading of the Qere
]"inx, which occurs e.g. 2,11.44, is clear, and the Kethib appears to be nothing
but a different pronunciation of the same ; [cf Syr. *'*+>[, P_nx, plur. ?*+*>{, l^n«, 35
Noldeke, Syr. Gramm. § 46 and p. 85 below; Maud. Gr. §§ 118. 149; Neusyr.
Gr. p. 107, n. 1 (^-s^ Bahren for Bahran, cf. ,^J>\~sf)\ Haupt, The Assyria?!
E-vowel, p. 17, n. 1. Barth's objections, Noniinalbildung, p. 319, are not valid].
Siegfr.-Stade, however, reject the reading i'lnx adopted by Kautzsch (§ 61,

3, a) and Buhl (Gesen.12), retaining the sense until the last, or at last, just as 40
Buhl, who compares in Hebrew iS. 1,22. The Heb. p'inx (Job 19,25) = last
has, of course, nothing to do with this. Behrm. prefers, with Siegfr.-Stade as
well as Bar and GiNSB., the Kethib fins, regarding the most generally ac-
cepted sense at last as impossible; but his own explanation of the Kethib, taking
it either as sing, or plur., is certainly not unexceptionable. However, the trans- 45
lation And in addition to others, besides others, is less probable than that ground-
ed on Ezra 4,21 (ty for "H "ty), viz. until another; for in addition to 0, euu<; f]\Gev
AavtnX, AX have euj? ou erepcx; eian.\8ev £vwtu6v uou AavinX. Marti (§ 98)
translates "ijrt then at last (da nun endlicK). In pinx, which he reads ]y!PN, he
sees (§ 94, b) an adverb with the meaning at last, comparing Arab, ^jjju 5°
(bddaiii) afterwards. This explanation appears to be as hazardous as his theory
regarding bzjrbl: he thinks (§ 95, d) that it should be written as one word, a
compound of f?2j?!? and 3 (cf, however, Prow 24, 12.29). I am surprised to find

22 _k*{3«©.s$. ©rtitt'ef *^-©*StJo^ 3,14 — 25

peculiar passive forms has as yet been attained. Behrm. (pp. vii f.) suggests a
Hittafal of KHN, referring to (t° Gen. 33, 11. Also Strack (§ 12, b) mentions
n«W?lM of (to, citing G. Dalman's valuable Grammatik des jiidisch-paldstinischen
Aramaisch, Leipzig, 1894, p. 299. Strack, however, prefers to explain the form
as Hof'al, as suggested to him by J. Barth (hiythayith = huythayith\ cf. rjp" 5
Ex. 30 32 ; ["JO", however, is merely a transcriptional error for *JDV; so mx]. Wellh.
has a simpler view. He remarks in the Berlin Deutsche Lit.-Zeit., 1887, No. 27,
col. 968 : "There is no objection to considering the Aram, passive perfects "rop
and NTH as new forms developed from the participle. Of necessity, the 0 of
wnfi would have to be dropped in the perfect." Cf. Marti, §§ 6o,b;64,l. 10

(14) Instead of Bar s and GlNSB.'s reading VPffn, it is better to read N"ixn with n
interrogativum (KAUTZSCH, §67,2). Yet as the reference to the Heb. nnsa
Num. 35,20 is doubtful (Kautzsch, § 67,4), it would seem easier to emend X to
t«, with BEVAN and BEHRM., following 2,5.8. But it need not be inferred, with
STRACK, that 0, who replaces the inappropriate Aid xi of (D with Ei a\r|9u>c, 15
so much better suited to the context, or 3 who follows 0, were aware of this
emendation of the text, or actually read the Persian snjx.

(15) For the )» preferred by Bar, but not by GlNSB., see on v. 6. Bar and Strack
rightly read the last word of v. 15: >T (cf. v. 17), though Ginsb. and Marti have
*!*■ 20

(16) The accent Athnach should be carried one word forward. (5 rightly begins the
address (cf. v. 9) with KO^D, which through a transcriptional error has dropped
out of ill, and is wanting even in 0; cf. \\> 42,7 the first word, after the refrain
in v. 6, also read correctly by Bathgen.

Instead of the adjective pntfn, KAUTZSCH, § 58,2, e reads, with Bar and 25
Strack, the participle J'ntfn.

(18) From the Kethib 1UWM, the Qere has made tMJVljt, eliding the plural *; see on
2,4b. According to Bar (ad 2,10), whose view has been accepted by Ges.-
BUHL12, the first syllable is written plene only before suffixes; in all other cases
the Masorah requires "Jrix instead of the WN given by the Received Text, which 30
Ginsb. and Strack, under a different estimate of the tradition, adopt even
where there is no suffix.

(19) The Qcrc ^n^s is superfluous, since the plural of the Kethib, as in Hebrew, oc-
casions no difficulty; only, we should not pronounce, with Bar, uritttot (so, too,
GlNSB. who adds also 'ntfx), but, with Behrm., ISfltfK or r|Fltf«. 35

(21) The Qere ]1iTtrt2B, which in the Oriental or Babylonian texts is also the Kethib
(Bar, p. 90), has Dagesh dirimens. The Kethib is not to be pronounced 'tf'BS
(Bar, p. 96), but yimtf'DS. Ginsb. gives both these forms as the Kethib of the
Occidental or Palestinian texts.

(23) Norzi writes pnrrpn, while Bar and Ginsb. as well as Strack and Marti re- 40
quire JliWrJfl; ]inr6fl would seem to be more correct; cf. Kautzsch, § 65, 1, note 1.
For the apocryphal addition found in (5 after v. 23, cf. Behrm., p. xxix, and § 5
of the article on Daniel by the present writer in the Dictionary of the Bible
edited by Cheyne. Those 67 verses appear to be of purely Greek origin;
at any rate they never found their way into iW, though they were taken up from 45
(i) into other Versions.

(25) In this verse, unlike 3,26, we should give the preference, with Lohr (ZAT '95,
p. 85), to the Codex Chisianus over the Hexaplar Syriac, whose ^ VS <*■** fol-
lows the kcu TrepmotTouvTa? of 0, while M and the Chisianus, which represents
6, have not the objectionable conjunction before the participle. Moreover, the 50
Masoretic pronunciation as a Hafel participle would seem less acceptable than
that of the Piel participle (p^nO; cf. 4,26); so, too, in 4,34.

Strack points, with Bar (p. 71) and Ges.-Buhl12, both here and in 6,24, bin,

3,5—13 -*»«©■&♦ ©antcf -*s-©*eH~- 21

; might be well to add, however, that Dr. Andreas treats Jit very freely; he

would read e. g. irnsn instead of KVIBXI &c.

It is hard to conceive why Marti considers the last four words, ISVOna D^pn *l
s:^0, not original in v. 2. It seems to me we are not justified in assuming
a gloss, but if we are inclined to resort to that expedient it would seem easier to 5
find a gloss in v. 3, owing to the repetition in v. 3a and 3b.

(5) In vv. 5.7. 10. 15 D^n^p (Greek KiOaptc), which Bar would pronounce D'lJVp,
GlNSB. Ds,rpp or D'uvp, is improperly changed by the Qere into the usual Tar-
gumic form D'inp.

(6) The pronunciation jtt, preferred by BAR, following the Masorah, instead of the 10
\b adopted by GlNSB. and STRACK, is open to serious doubts (see Kautzsch,

§ 22,1). Marti, on the other hand, thinks (§ 27, b, note) that ]», which is not
found in the early editions, must be explained as a kind of pausal lengthening.
He is of the opinion, therefore, that the vocalization is based on accurate tradition.

Instead of NRJJB/ or nnj># of the Received Text, Bar and GlNSB., following the 15
best evidence, write srwtf or nriStf; but nv*C! in 4,16, as well as the cognate forms
in both Syriac and Arabic, points to an a in the first syllable {cf Kautzsch,
§ 56, a, ($,2, at the end) in the present passage as well as in v. 15; 4,30; 5,5. The
a of iH appears to be incorrect. Cf. also Ges.-Buhl12. Strack points through-
out Krwtf with a, adding, however, that «•', with d, is given by the Codex 20
Jemenensis in 4 , 30; 5 , 5 and by the Codex Derenburgii in 3 , 6 . 1 5 ; 5 , 5. Cf. Martt's
Glossary, p. 87.

(7) The rvaBDIDI, which stands in vv. 5. 10. 15, has here probably dropped out by over-
sight, although it is true that it is also wanting in (5. This term for the bag-pipe

is unquestionably taken from the Greek, but both its spelling and its exact mean- 25
ing are doubtful. The Masorah reads 'filD in all three passages, the Kethib in
v. io, however, gives "'D. Against the usual derivation from au^qpuivia (Kautzsch,
§ 64,4^, the objection has been raised by BEHRMANN that the Greek word does
not denote a musical instrument, and that it would be easier to derive iVi^D
from ai(pix)v=reed. He points to the Syriac Uidflj [FRA.NKEL, Aram. Fremd- 30
worter, p. 277] in support of ifiB^D as the older form of the Aram, word, and
derives it direct from oiqpiiivia. If he be right in comparing the Mandaic
fcWi&KP for )Wyw in 3,22, so far as the insertion of the m is concerned [cf.
Noldeke, Maud. Gr. p. 76,3; Delitzsch, Assyr. Gr. § 52], then the Kethib in
v. 10 would probably be sounded n^b^pl; but Bar and GlNSB. write 5 with Dagesh. 35

rrosisiD is omitted by (S in vv. 7 and 10, by 0 also in v. 5. Marti, therefore,
thinks {Glossary, p. 74) that the word has been inserted in v. 10 by a later scribe,
especially as ",i2B,D resembles the later Syriac form. This view, however, is not
probable. Driver, Introduction5, p. 470, n. 3 remarks, The form iOilB'D in 3,10
is remarkably illustrated by pDD = ouucpuuvoi, in the sense agreed, in the great 40
bilingual inscription from Palmyra of A. D. 137 (ZDMG 'S3, p. 569; '88, p. 412);
cf. post-Biblical Heb. pst^D, t. e. ouucpujvov agreement. BEHRMANN needlessly
resorts to an imaginary Greek form oicpdbvia (see the German edition of Driver's
work, translated by ROTHSTEIN, Berlin, 1896, p. 538).

(12) As KAUTZSCH (§6 1, 6) rightly observes, the Kethib pn»rP {cf v. 8 JWfo?) is 45
preferable to the Qere ]'S~u; ; see on 2,5.

(12.18; The Kethib is wrong in requiring the plural, which, according to GlNSB., would
be ~\*rh Kb ; but the Qere cannot be adduced as evidence for the sing., because
the Masorah everywhere strikes out the , of the plur. ; see on 2,4b.

(13) The alteration of the passive form VJVrt to the Hafel VJVn (5,3) does not com- 50
mend itself; for the ffpfl of 6,18, formed similarly (cf Kautzsch, § 47, at the
end) with short a, can, according to the context, be nothing else but a passive.
According to KAUTZSCH (§ 41, at the end), no satisfactory explanation of these

20 — <**&«&%*■ ©anuf ♦»€>s?*>- 2,40 — 3,3

(40) As in v. 39, the Qere nxsnrn corresponds to the Kethib SOirrn ; so, too, e. g. in
3,25.26.32; 7,7-23- [Cf ZA ii, 275,2].

Kautzsch-Marti think that the context requires the connection, against
the accents, of ybx bl with what follows ; they also regard the three words *6nB31
yjn» "H, which are wanting in 0, as a gloss, being rendered suspicious by the 5
Waiu of the apodosis. But 0 certainly had these words before him though they
may not be expressed in his free translation. This is clearly proved by the older
text of ®, Kai Ob? 6 0ibr|poc; -rrav bevbpov ekkotttuuv, apart from the confusion of
]b» (so often written defectively ; cf. v. 44) with fyx (cf 4 , 7). The obscurity of ^fcrta
does not justify us in changing the text, whether these words be understood of 10
the three metals named, or connected, in opposition to the accents, with what
follows, and interpreted as relating to the first three kingdoms. The so-called 1
of the apodosis (Kautzsch, § 69, 1), which BEHRM. erroneously assumes in 7,20,
is here out of the question; it would be better to compare Luther's rendering
of the 1 in \\i 90, 17 by ja. 15

(43) As in v. 41 the Qere begins the verse with Ti; Marti, however, now prefers the
K°thib omitting the superfluous 1 (contrast his translation in KAUTZSCH's AT).

(44) According to Kautzsch-Marti we should read, with 0, nn»?fi, in order to
obtain the sense expressed by ill through the stat. enipJi.-, see on v. 7. In point

of sense, (5 auTn. n, (JaaiXeia, and 0, f| PacnXeia auxoO, agree; the translator, 20
however, is met by a difficulty in the fact that in the same verse isbtt means
kingdom^ both in the sense of territory subject to a Icing, and also in that of
royal authority, sovereign power. Whether the word in question be interpreted
according to 6,27 as Kingdom of God, or as dominion of the kingdom, the
tradition, which by the Rapheh over the n excludes both masc. and fern, suffixes, 25
is needlessly contradicted.

(45) As to fcnitstt, see above on v. 34; and for the placing, on the authority of (5, of
NBDn after npnn, (cf. Kautzsch, § 46, 3, b), see on v. 35. The codices collated
by STRACK read JfiTlDI, with yttj?; for this vocalization, StraCK refers to 6,5 and

to G. Dalman's Gramm. p. 258. For the meaning of ]B\itt, cf. Bevan's note in 30
Marti, p. 52*.
(49) For Krway, cf. STRACK, Aoriss, p. 13*. We must either read, with Marti (§ 72, c),
H; or, with Kautzsch (§§ 9, note 4,c; 16,4), Dagesh lene without Metheg; cf. supra
v. 20 «mua.

35
(0 Although in ill the date is wanting both here and in the next section (vv. 31 ff.), 0
has retained here the eighteenth year of the king, which is given by (5 both in
the present passage and in 4,1, omitting, however, the further embellishments
of 6.
(2.3) Gratz proposed to alter WOli to K^mn, which we first read in v. 24; Lagarde 40
attempted to explain tO-DIl as a transcriptional error for the following official
title iTiarn, suggesting that i0"O"!J should be struck out as an erroneous repeti-
tion. Neither explanation is quite satisfactory. If we disregard the words and
all (other) officials of the provinces, which at once conclude and sum up, we read
of seven classes of officials in M, while in ©0 there are only six. But we do 45
not need to reduce the seven to six, because in v. 5 only six kinds of musical
instruments are enumerated. Contrariwise, the usual triad of designations of
peoples, which 0, following itt, reproduces in v. 4, has been made by 6 a four-
fold group: eOvn Kai xuJPai, ^a°i Kai yXujaoai.

Marti, too, would emend ill «mj in vv. 2.3; but according to his authority, 50
Dr. Andreas (p. 57*), this word is merely a different adaptation of fcC-OH trea-
surer. For the many new explanations suggested by Andreas, we must refer
the reader to the Glossary appended to Marti's book in the Porta series. It

2,34—39 -<*{3«<®-S<* ©antcf *3-5>SB»- 19

2 p. n8b; D. H. Muller, Sendschirli, p. 50]. Marti (§ 24, b) thinks the Qere

correct (contrast NOLDEKE, Lit. Centralbl.. 1896, 703); Strack refers to S. Lan-
DAUER's Studien zu Merx's Chrest. Targum. in Zcitschrift fitr Assy riologie,
1888, p. 276.

(34) The proposal to insert here, with ©0, X"nt3tt from v. 45 before rnnnn does not 5
commend itself. The insertion of it opou?, which Reuss still adduces as an
explanation, does away with the atmosphere of mystery in the expression. More-
over, mountain accords badly with the close of v. 35, where the Great Mountain
signifies the Messianic Kingdom, which spreads from Zion as its centre (Is. 2,2;
\\) 87) over the whole earth. It is much more likely that XTittD is superfluous 10
in v. 45 also. As has been pointed out by Behrm., it can only be taken as
an addition to the picture, and not as pointing to Mount Zion. It may there-
fore have crept by error from v. 35 into v. 45.
(35a) As to ip^, cf. Kautzsch, § 46, 3, a.

The addition of the fish of the sea, which (5 has in v. 38 (but not 0 according 15
to SWETE) is not a happy one. It is one of the numerous evidences of careless-
ness and arbitrary procedure, which impair the critical value of these oldest
translations. Even in passages where the readings of the Versions yield a better
sense (as c. g. in vv. 35.45, in the order of the metals) it is, therefore, hard to
decide, whether (50 with their smoother reading present the original text, or 20
whether we must not rather attribute some slight roughnesses to the author of
the Book himself. In vv. 33.34 the iron must, of course, come before the clay;
but in point of sense it would be more exact if in vv. 35.45 the clay were put
first. In 05 it is so placed only in v. 45 ,- in 0 in v. 35 also. Although I have here
followed 0, I have not regarded the changing order, which appears in 5,4.23, 25
as a reason for altering the text. Elsewhere also (cf. Jer. 10,4), silver is men-
tioned before gold [cf. Delitzsch's Assyr. HandwortcrbucJi, pp. 292.345 sub
xuracu, kaspu], and so the author might easily depart in v. 23 from v. 4 and v. 2.
Thus 3 also in v. 23 gives silver the first place, 0 gold, while (5 entirely avoids
the specific enumeration of the metals. 30

(35b) Bar follows the best authorities in writing nntt, nin, nxbtt; in fact nne appears in
his text even in v. 34. GlNSB. gives the same pronunciations, only he writes
nxbfi. Since we can scarcely think of the strong form nxb», decided preference
should be given to r\»bp. Notwithstanding the vacillation of ill, it would appear,
according to Kautzsch, § 47,0 and Strack, § 16, k, that a should be written 35
everywhere in the third sing. fern. perf. of N"^ or T\"b verbs; cf. also KAUTZSCH,
§ 47,g,l,a and Marti, § 67, a & n.

(36) The Textkrit. Vorarbeiten zu eincr Erkl. des B. Dan., which Max L6hr has
begun to publish in Stade's ZAT (1895, pp. 75 ff., cf p. 90 ; also pp. 193 ff. ;
1896, pp. 17 rT.) investigate the text of the Cod. Chisianus and of the Hexaplar 40
Syriac, in order to recover the genuine (5 text of Daniel in the greatest possible
purity. This results for v. 36 in the addition of auxou to Trjv Kpiaiv be, as offered
by Swete (Vol. iii, p. 508).

(38) To the Kethib p*n {cf. v. 31 DNp) we find attached here and in 3,31;
6,26 the Qere ],vn, while in 7,16 the change of the « to , fails to appear in 45
KJtt«£ ; see KAUTZSCH, § 1 1 , 1 , c. [Cf. Delitzsch-H AUPT, Beitr. z. Assyr. i , 489].
39) The Kethib NSHS*, which should not be confounded with the final word of the
verse, would have to be construed as a fern. adj. (Siegfr.-Stade, Behrm.), but is
satisfactorily replaced by the adverbial Qere JHN.

In agreement with the change of , to K noted in v. 5, the Kethib RWton 50
is accompanied by the Qere nKfP^JPl, while the K at the end of the word is replac-
ed by the (perhaps more ancient) n, in order that two Alephs may not come
together; [cf. Wright-de Goeje3, § 179^ remark a].

1 8 ~<*S3«s-§<* ©anuf *>§-©*si*°- 2,10—33

! {Gesen}2) rejects the Haf el, but reads as Kethib the Hithpe. JUWWPI, like the

Qere pmontn, beside which GlNSB. offers also as Qere the yiflll^fn accepted by
Bar. Cf Kautzsch, §§32, 2, a; 33, 2, a.
(10) For VPN or VlN, see the note on 3,18.

Behrm. explains blV as a simple slip of the pen for the Aram. bl\ which occurs 5
in 3,29. It is true that the Heb. form ^31D, which in 5,16 appears twice as
Kethib, is altered by the Qere to b\ZR; but in 2, 10 we have a Hebraism tolerat-
ed by M; cf. BEVAN, /. c, p. 39, and Strack, § 12, g.

(12) Kautzsch, Siegfr.-Stade, and Strack take no exception to the verb Dia. There
are certainly no incompatible consonants in it as in the alleged Hebrew nbi(Is.33,i). 10
BEHRM., however, will not admit the stem. He regards as a better reading
the Targumic DD3 to be sad or displeased [cf. Assyr. nasdsu 'to lament,' Zimmern,
Busspsalmen, p. 93; Delitzsch, Protege p. 64]. The Biblical omaS Xeyouevov
D33 has no support in the cognate languages, and was brought in question as
early as the tenth century of our era by Dunash ben-Labrat; but we can hardly 15
believe that the passages with D32 in the Targums should all be based on the
erroneous assumption of a Biblical-Aramaic stem found only in our passage. Yet
the existence of the supposed root "UN abiit [cf v. 5) was, according to Levy's
NHWB, undoubtedly only artificial.

(13) Read, with THEILE, Ginsburg, and Strack, ]^t3pn» (cf v. 14), against Bar, 20
who writes 0 without Dagesh.

(16) MARTI thinks that KO^n has dropped out before *n»fil; but 1 must mean here as
often und zwar (KAUTZSCH, §69,1); cf the notes on i,2b (p. 14, 1. 20) and on 4,6.

(22) The Kethib, which would read K"lVUl is altered by the Qere to tnirUl; but cf.
n\"0 with virtual sharpening of the n (5,11.14), and the analogy of Syriac 25
(Kautzsch, § 16 end) which Behrm. applies. Noldeke in his review of Marti's
Porta [Liter. Centralblatt, 1896, No. 19) thinks that the Qere is right.

i\\ XVd. STRACK states: "DE GOEJE conicit Klttf." This pronunciation, as part,
act. seems to me preferable. Gesen. (T/ies.) compares Syr. (;_■., Samar. A'JW-
devertit, habitavit, castra posuit and KaxaXueiv devertcre, Arab, ^l-51-); \ff- Bern- 30
stein's Lex. Syr. direst. Kirsch. p. 545aj. NOLDEKE remarks, against Marti
who follows dk Goejk, that from the Syriac point of view NIB* is not exceptional.

(23) To ro.T corresponds only nB^n 4,19 {cf KAUTZSCH, § 25,0). Elsewhere, ill re-
tains the unaccented final d; cf. v. 47; 5,22; 6,13.14. Against the rejection of
the vowel we have evidence also in the occasional insertion of a vowel-letter 35
(v. 41 ; 5,27), and likewise in the analogy of the Kethib nniN (see on v. 29) and
the K"1? verbs (Kautzsch, § 47, d).

(24) MARTI would delete bts, because it is not expressed in ©0, but this argument
is not valid, as the word is quite unnecessary in this context, so far as the
sense is concerned. BEHRMANN does not consider the word a gloss. 40

(25) The n after n2i is deleted by GlNSBURG and Marti because it is not attested
by all MSS. If they are right the little word would occur but thrice in this
verse.

(28) Marti thinks that "pDBia by "]Wi Mini is, perhaps, an interpolation; but there is
no cogent reason for considering the words a gloss, either here or 7,1. 45

(29) Here and in vv.31.37.38; 3,10; 4,19; 5,13.18.22:6,17.21 the Kethib, which
reads nniS, is shortened to the Qere riiX. Kautzsch rightly remarks (§ 18, note)
that the final A must still have been pronounced when the Bibl. Aram, texts
were written.

(33) Here and in vv. 41.42, and also 7,8.19, the ending ]ln, which appears in the 50
Kethib, and serves for both genders, is replaced in the Qere by the feminine
suffix JYI, for which Norzi writes )H; see in KAUTZSCH, besides § 53,2, note a,
also p. 165, [and cf Joh?is Hopkins University Circulars, No. 114, July 1894,

2,5—9 ~«i*3«C6-» ©ant'cf ♦^•©^H»- 17

In the Kethib, according- to this view, the endings should probably be pro-
nounced -nihil, -aiJi, aiua.

Instead of JU Kjna, Marti would read Kini {Porta linguarum Orientalium,
Pars xviii, Berlin, i8q6: § 65 ,c). Marti (who is indebted for this remark to
BEVAN; cf. MARTI, p. 62*) thinks it strange (cf. v. 6) that we meet with no Haf'el 5
form of this verb with syncopated n, and infers from this fact that ill read the
Pael wherever it was possible, since in later usage the Pael alone has the
meaning to announce. Thus we should read e. g. v. 11 M31JV instead of Fl|in\

(5) N6LDEKE (Go'tt. gel. Anz. 1884, pp. 102 if.) has pointed out that we find in Dan.
2.3 five times 1i» before pttXI, py, on the other hand, but once; so pj? in 10
3,24 would seem to be an ancient scribal error. The substitution of the perf.
rtt» for the part. n_iJ before the sing. "IfiNl would be a departure from
the Masoretic points only. Both STRACK (Abriss des Biblisch- Aramaischen,
Leipzig, 1896, § 10, e) and Marti (§ 102, b) prefer the perfect, but they have not
adopted it in their text, neither in 2,5 nor in 2,8. 15; 3, 14. 19.24.25.26.28; 4, 16. 15
27 ; 5 , 7 . 13 . 1 7 ; 6,13.17.21; 7,2. For the participle instead of the perfect in a
narrative, cf. c. g. 3,3.4; 4,11; 5,7, and Kautzsch, § 76, 2, a.

K^D^ is the Kethib corresponding to the Qere ,tn&?j>. But Jit is so little con-
sistent, according to Kautzsch, § u,i,b, in this change of , to N, demanded
e. g. by the Qere of 3 , 26 and 5 , 30, that in all forms of ""Onj? and many other 20
cases, e.g. 3,8, it leaves the Kethib untouched; and even in 3,12, in place of the
Kethib pRTliT, the Qere requires V.RTVP with quiescent X. See further Kautzsch
§ 52, 2, d and § 61,6. [Cf. HAUPT, ZA ii, 275; Beitr. z. Assy 7: i, 296; Jager,
ibid. 489. — P.H.]

Instead of K"]JS, which Bar erroneously considers a kind of participle, we 25
should vocalize, with GlNSBURG and Strack, here and in v. 8, JWJ«. The
old explanation, that the dream had escaped the king's memory, is refuted
by the fact that "UK cannot be a parallel form of the b\x in common use (cf. v. 17);
see KAUTZSCH, § 38, 1 ,a. We must certainly, with Noldeke, fall back upon the
Old Persian adjective azda 'sure.' Dr. C. F. Andreas, of Berlin, who has given 30
in Marti's Glossary a number of new explanations of Persian loan-words, thinks
that K1tK= Middle Persian azd 'information, news;' both Strack and Siegfried-
Stade, however, follow Noldeke's explanation which, without doubt, fits
better.

(7) In the Beilagen to KAUTZSCH's AT (p. 87) the comment is made on v. 7: Read, 35
in accordance with vv.j and 6, rnstel; ill the interpretation; but we should ex-
pect i<r$S as status emphaticus, as in v. 4. Whether we understand its interpre-
tation or the intetpretation is wholly indifferent for the sense. How ill vacil-
lates appears from the fact that in 4, 15. 16, instead of the Kethib N"itfs, the Qere
requires TnfS, while in 5,12 the (perhaps older) n (cf. Kautzsch, § 50, note 3), 40
instead of the s which had attained to almost complete dominance, occurs not
only in the feminine, but also in the stat. emph. It would be an overestimate of
the accuracy practiced by the ancient translators, to suppose it possible
to decide whether 053, here and in 5, 12, had, or had not, the suffix in their
texts. 45

(9) |l2fn after N\n without Dag. lene, but always with long a as in Persian data.
The ]"Drfl retained by Siegfr.-Stade, against Bar and GlNSBURG, must there-
fore be rejected; cf. Kautzsch, § 64,3.

The Hithpa'el of the Qere is preferable, since the reflexive is better adapted
than the Haf el of the Kethib to express the sense reach a decision, U7idertahe. 50
True, Bar prefers to pronounce ]irumn, instead of the usual Kethib ^mmn, also
read by Strack as proi?!?, as though n were assimilated (Olsh. § 268); but the
appeal to totn (Is. 1,16) hardly warrants the doing away with the Haf'el. Buhl

Ban. 3

16 -<*i3*<s-K* ©antef -$3"©»ss*>- 2,4

have the meaning dream, though it does not occur elsewhere in the OT with
that force. Haupt, for this reason, would make the Nifal of ;vn equivalent to
the Qal, and translate: his dream weighed upon him. Then the text in 6,19
would need to be altered to suit.
(4a) irciK is struck out as a gloss by Lenormant, Bevan, and Kautzsch-Marti, 5
but without adequate reason. It was read by @; see Kamphausen, Das Buch
Daniel (Leipzig, 1893) p. 13 ff., and especially his article on Daniel 'in the Dictionary
of the Bible planned by W. ROBERTSON Smith and now being edited by CheynE;
cf. also Behrm. ad Joe. The latter maintains erroneously {cf KAUTZSCH, § 6),
that it is not the author's fault if the Aramaic spoken by the Chaldean magicians 10
has been identified with the language of the Chaldean people.

[It seems to me impossible to deny that rVDIN is a subsequent addition to mark
the beginning of the Aramaic sections. I cannot believe that the author regard-
ed Biblical Aramaic as the language of Babylonia, and wrote, therefore, the
sections applying more especially to Babylon in Aramaic, reserving Hebrew for 15
the prophetic chapters. -J* Such an hypothesis does not account for the fact that
the apocalyptic c. 7 is written in Hebrew.

The only satisfactory explanation of the bilingual feature of the Book, it
seems to me, is the assumption^ that the Book was originally written all in
Hebrew, and that some portions that had been lost, were afterwards supplied 20
from an Aramaic translation, which had probably been prepared by the author
of the Book himself shortly after the composition of the Hebrew original. The
objection that the Aramaic portions do not read like a translation is not valid.
If a modern scholar writes a Latin essay, and subsequently issues a translation
in his vernacular, the latter may very well be more idiomatic than the original. 25
Cases like Schopenhauer's Theoria colorum. physiologica are rare.

The fact that JT»"lK, both in Dan. 2,4 and Ezr. 4,7, is a gloss was pointed out
by Oppert as early as i860 in the first edition of his Elements de la grammaire
assyrienne (Extrait Xo. 1 de l'annee i860 du Journal asiatique). Oppert re-
marks there in a note on p. 4 : Le mot JT01K, qui precede les passages arameens 30
(Dan. II ,4 et Esd. IV, 7), nest qu'une sorte de litre. Le passage d'Esdras a etc
traduit jusqu'ici par > line lettre e'erile en arameen et traduite en arame'en,«
ce qui est un non-sens. II fait t traduire: »e'crite en arameen et traduite. Ara-
meen. « (Cesl-a dire, ce qui suit est de I 'arame'en.) Aussi les Septante rayent-
ils le mot a la fin. This note is reprinted, with some slight improvements of 35
the French, in the second edition of Oppert's Grammaire (Paris, 1868); cf.
Nestle, Marginalien^ p. 39; Prince, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, Baltimore,
1893, p. 63. The original text of v. 4a was probably: Tiox^l I^S1? D'lteon VDTM,
but notri (not "i»K^; cf. 8,16; 9,22; io, 16, Kamph.) was afterwards superseded
by the gloss ntTlK. Cf the note on Ezr. 4,7. — P. H.] 40

(4b) In ytSSb the s of the Kethib is elided in the Qere, so that the plural form would
practically be identical with the singular form. According to KAUTZSCH, § 53,2,
note b, and Behrm., p. viii, 7, b, the singular and plural suffixes distinguished in
the Kethib are in the Book of Daniel, as a rule, made alike by the Qere through
the elision of the , of the plural ending of nouns. The same elision takes 45
place also with the suffix of the third pers. sing. fern, and the first pers. plur.

-*3-€>S}*~

•j* [Cf. Kamphausen, Das Buch Daniel una1 die neuere Geschichtsforschung, Leipzig,
I^93, p. 15. Hugo Grotius states in his Amiotationcs in VT ad Dan. 11,4: Abhinc 50
usque ad caput 8. omnia scripta sunt Chaldaice, quod Chaldaeos maxime tangant; inde
vero rursum Hebraice, quod quae ibi dicuntur maxime Hebraeos respiciani].

*f" [Cf. Francois Lenormant, Die Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer, Jena
1878, p. 591].

1,6 — 2,i -cHS*©^* ©antcf •$3-©*-SH~- 15

3*. As Dagesh lene is wanting in the J of DJnB (3,16; 4, 14), it would seem as if
the 2 in 53ns also (cf. vv. 8. 13. 15. 16; 11,26) should be provided with Rapheh;
see Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Arani. % 64,3.

WlLHELM Dikhi,, Das Pron. pers. stiff. (Giessen, 1895), reads ]nsp» instead of
the mascul. suffix; cf. 8,9. 5

(6) While 0, Iy. tujv uiujv louba, gives a faithful translation of ill rnirv "Oafe, ©, having
regard to v. 3, paraphrases with £k toO yivovc, tujv uidiv lo"pan.\ tujv citto xf|^
'\ovbaiac,.

(12) Kautzsch-Marti, following v. 16, would read D^i?"!! instead of ill U"y% But
the shorter form (cf. OLSH. § 184, b) is quite normal; nor is it exceptional that 10
it should interchange with the longer D'ijnt (cf. Ew. § 167, a; OLSH. §2i5,d

9; Stade § 296, c). Most commentators agree with Siegfr.-Stade in regard-
ing the shorter form as quite unobjectionable. Behrm. speaks of it as a characte-
ristic of our author to take pleasure in such interchanges of similar forms, and
refers as examples to mjni 11,15 an<3 D^jHT 11,31; Dj>Bnn2,i and Dj?sn 2,3. 15
This is a liberty many authors indulge in. Thus in Luther's Bible at Deut.
33, 16.20 the masculine den Scheitel and the feminine die Scheitel are used inter-
changeably.

(13) ["Dll 131 TOO means 'to compare a thing with another,' i. e. to regard two or
more things with discriminating attention; so Eccl. 2,12. "\zib *m ^COn 20
(nan, mt?n) = to compare a thing to another, i. c. to liken; cf. Is. 46,5. — P. H.].

(20) Kautzsch-Marti read, with 0, nrru naan, on the ground that ill would give
the sense wisdom of insight. Whoever objects to Hitzig's shrewd wisdom, may
still, with Behrm., hold by ill, and doubt whether 0 has really any divergence.

Read with © a ) before CSEWt; the omission of and cannot be defended by 25
5,15, which is of different construction.

(21) There cannot be any question of the correctness of ill \"H, © nv, 0, e-ftvero.
The author has purposely chosen an indefinite expression as in 2,49 and 3,30.
Hence there is no occasion, with Kautzsch-Marti, to consider our passage a
later addition, on the ground that in 10,1 the third year of Cyrus is mentioned. 30
Nor need we, with Behrm., adopt the conjecture that here, perhaps, in accord-
ance with the close of 2, the determinative of place "|^>»n *lJ?KO has dropped out.
Cf. 9,26 "b )"«!.

(1) Follow Ewald's conjecture, and insert TPfyV after DTiC. We have no right to 35
assume that the author would have been so careless as to contradict his own
statement in 1,5. It does not follow, however, that Nebuchadnezzar in 1,1 is
called king by prohfsis, as Behrm. still maintains. It is much more reason-
able to assume a transcriptional error, although the consonantal text of this
Book, which alone was written by the author, and which lies before us almost 40
always in the Kethib, is among the best preserved of the texts of the entire
OT. But this text should not be confounded with that of ill, the latter being
marred by many errors, especially in the Aramaic portions.

The free translation his step vanished 'is supported by 8,27, where the Nifal
of nvi — questioned, it is true, by Bevan (Comin. on the Book of Dan., Cam- 45
bridge, 1892) and Kautzsch-Marti — means to be gone, vanished, according
to Siegfr.-Stade privatively [Ges.-Kautzsch26, § 52,2 c]: to be deprived of
being. Behrm., following 6,19 and Gen. 31,40, thinks that nmi was perhaps the
original reading instead of nn\1J; but, on account of the VTibs? in 6,19 (cf also
4,33; 10,8), he rightly takes no exception to by, for which the older language 50
would use byte.

In view of the Assyrian suttu i—suntii), the usual word for dream (cf. HAUPT
in Sciirader's KAT2 502), nil?, which is here translated uttvo? by ©0, might

-«» tviticat (Uofce on ©anief *&*>-

I (2-1) For si'~i« a single codex of Kennic. reads Hl^P; so, too, the Graecus Venctus, which
begins the verse: ebuwev ouv 6 ovxuuxn,? £v xe,Pi °i iuriaxiunv. As to the ex-
tremely small value for purposes of textual criticism of this second Aquila, who
wrote about 1400 A. D., sec my review of O. GEBHARDT's edition (Graecus- Vote- 5
tus, Lipsiae, 1875) in Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1876, pp. 577-586.
(2lj) The concise and summarizing character of this statement makes it difficult
to give a lucid rendering. Consequently, recent interpreters have fallen back on
the supposition that it contains glosses. Behrmann, in his Commentary (Got-
tingen, 1894) would strike out the concluding words: and he brought tJic vessels 10
into the treasure-house of his god; KAUTZSCH-MARTI (Die Heil. Schrift des AT,
1894), on the other hand, would make the suffix in DS'TI refer not to the vessels,
but exclusively to the persons led into captivity; they regard YThx JV2 as a gloss
on the last three words of the verse, and translate the concluding words: but
the vessels Sec. The obscurity lies in the fact that in the suffix of DK^M both 15
persons and vessels are understood. The reference to the latter comes into
prominence because the author wishes to have done at once with the vessels,
which are not mentioned again until 5,2ff. Hence, for clearness' sake, there is
appended to into the house 0/ his god the nearer determination in v. 2b, where
a/id (cf. 2,16.18) stands for that is to say. The assumption of a gloss, which 20
affords only a partial improvement of ill, can hardly be admitted as a restoration
of the original text. Nor is it permissible to find, with Behrmann (p. xxxiii), a
departure from ilt in (53's mention of the capture of the city, since the
author presupposes the capture of Jerusalem as a matter of course. 0, with its
kcu Ebuwev Kupio^ ev xeipi auxou xov Iwaxeiu, is only returning from the free 25
translation of © (ku\ Trap^buuKf.v auxnv Kupio<; eic xeipa<; auxou xai lumxeiu) to a
more literal rendering of ill.

(3) The reading of (D A(3ieabpi for ill tlBB>K loses in importance from the fact that
in vv. 11. 16, where it re-appears, it has led to the arbitrary rejection of ill IX^fin
(0, AueXoctb). • 30

(4) D1KO is Kethib to Qere Dlfi. This Kethib appears also in Job 31 ,7.

(-) Bar (p. 62), following Ben Saruq, Qamchi and Norzi, reads always il"nS, for
ianfi; so, too, GlNSBURG. The popular etymology which finds here two words is
based on ns (crumb, cf. Prov. 17, 1), but comes to grief with the mere semblance
of a word J3, which occurs in Ezek. 25,7 in the Kethib, but is a transcriptional 35
error. For the derivation from the old Persian patibaga, cf. BEHRM. p. ii, sub

12,7— n

*«3«©-s* btryi $*osh°

13

12,7 Dvi n*on wish tyeo "ipk a«ian tsna"? »wi n« p&vm mwton pp
nfoai ,srii anjno tjnb^ <a a^yn Tin panto awn to A«oBn w

into ^>a n:^an trip dj> t psa
9.S tow I1? tjmw : nto mrw no w« moxi pa« *6i Tiy»p ^ki
< tjrmm a-ai ww wa^rm man^ jyp ny ny anain ananm dwid ■o 5

surr a^asyiani n^ytsn "?d iras *6i a^yan
1 2. 1 1 mra iffjwrn dtuso *)to n^ natf pp» nr6i T»nn nam ny»i

tntworn ttvbv n^o b6» *)to a^ yjpi nanan
13 tpofl ^pb i1?^ i»yni rmm fpb -j1? nn«i

12

°H3««e-g» b»"ii -*§-©»si*>~ 1 1 , 1 8— 12,6

■pas atsh irrnn lb «bi nayn «bi nnTwnb ib )m a^an nai na>y<^> lay n,ts
ras aihi nb aw insnn ^nba ib lnann pp rraiwn a^an nabi a^sb 19

mw «bi ^sii baoai una myab
mava «bi nat^ nnnw a^ai msba Yin fraia Yaya laa by noj;i a

5 :nanbaa «bi

nisba pwmi mb^a «2i nisba nin r^'iini abi ntaa iaa by najn 21
nnannn pi :nna Taa aai muh vaaba lsat^ fptfn niynn jmpbpbna 23.22
n»jn «ias nana matyaai ♦mtea 1 ^a tayaa asyi nbyi nana na>y^ fh» 24
ansae byi "iiw onb Bwn bbt?i nta ivqk maw i\na« wy «b naw

10 ;ny nj;i lviatpne aflr

nanbob mam aaan nbai bins b^na aaan *]ba by isnbi ins *ijn na
i>5ns ^a«i :maana vby obtp ■•a ney abi nsa ty aisyi bna b^na 26
byi ynab aaab a^ban amatan :a<an a^bbn ibaai mtaa" ibm innate 27
bna anana ww afeft :nyiab pp my "a nbsn «bi tot 3J| "ina ]nb&? 28

15 nnab aan rwjn anp mna by laabi

n-na n^^ la itoi tnamaai natswna mnn abi am «ai mt^*1 nyiab ^.29
a^ynn :«np nna sary by ja*i atsn na>yi amp mna by ayn aan naaai 31
*jwidi :ae#a pippn lanai TDnn imam nj;»n trnpan lbbm may uaa 32
a^anb la^ ay ■tyotwai n»jn lptm rnba sym ayi mpbna mam mna 33

20 nbai taya my nty: abpanai :d^ n«ai ^a^a nanbai anna ib^aii 34
ny ny )?bbi inabi nna t\vah lbtra^ D^awon p\ ;mpbpbna a^an an^by rb

nyiob my ^a fp
msbs: nai^ a^bs bs byi b« ba by bn^n^i aonn^ tpan ttina na^yi 36
man byi p1 «b rna« \nb« byi :nntyy: nsnm sa ayt nba ny n^sni 37

25 ta^ ma by D^yo nbsbi ;bi:irp ba by sa )^as sb mb« ba byi n^a 38
ntyyi :nni$nai nn^ ]a«ai *paai anta naD^ rna« ina^r^ «b n^« mbsbi 39
nfin«i a^ana tbvmm maa nam. Tan ipk noa mb« ay anra nsaob

jTnaa pbn11
a^iaai aana pssn ^bo vby nynt^i aaan ibo i»y naan^ ]>p nyai 0

30 nb«i ibtra^ nia^i ""asn p«a «ai nayi ^tstyi nisn«a «ai man msa«ai 41
rnsa y~\m ni^nwsa it n^m i]W '•aa iyvkti asitti on« nna laba"1 42
a^abi ansa nnon bsai *]oani antn sa»aaa btrm :nta^bab n\nn sb 43
T&vrft nbna «»na wn pesoi nntDa innna11 rojnjen nnysoa a^Di 44
j^ki iup ny «ai t^np ^as nnb nw pa ians« ^n« ytsM :a^an annnbi no

35 nb nny

n*a ny nn\ni n;ay ma by nayn bnan na(n bxa^ia n»ys «vin nyai i2,«
Ksoan ba -py taba^ «wi nyai «snn nyn iv ^a nvno nmna «b i»«
mannb nbsi abiy «nb nb« wp"1 nay n»n« *agho a^am naaa amD 2
a^aDiDa a^ann -p^TJtai y^pnn nnb- nnr a^batwani :abiy ]i«nnb 3

40 njn abiyb

mini a^an lwafeh ^>p ny ny naan anni anann ana bxmn nn«i 4

;nynn
nn«i n«\n natrb nan nn« anay a^nns amty nam btoan m« w«t n
via ny n«^n ^ab byaa mrx a^nan tyiab ^«b na«^i :nwn natyb nan 6

io5 — 11,17 -*B3*<©-§* bW\ ♦^■OSfco- 1 1

10,6 vnb:nai vn$nn bw *reta vi^yi pna ntnaa ww Brenro wui :tais

7 nsnan n« na1? bs^ri •&« vrtni tjian bipa man bipi bbp twra pya

anny nbas nbm n-nn bas n*nan n« isn «b vsy m t»m a^sm

s tmm sbi nwn nbmn nsnan ns ntnsi nab TrwiM ^si : sanna inw

;na vnsy sbi mna'ab ny "jam mm na n 5
9 ^a by an: wYi ^«i nai bip ns y&tm man bip ns yatrsi
11/ torn na toki pt msai nna by ^r:m n nyw t mm jrarw ^ai
vinbtf nny n "pay by layi -pbs nan *djk n»« ana-ia fan nnan t^«

:myna ^may ntn nann ns ^ay naiai mb«

12 pnb Tab n« nm ntrs ptrsnn am p n torn smn b« ns nam io

13 -ay ana niaba "ran :-pma Ti«a si«i yian lyatmnibs ^ab maynnbi
■OKI ^nryb sa ffawnn antyn ins bsa^a mm av nnsi antyy nwb

14 nnnsa -pyb rvjjp. na\s ns "jranb Tisai :a*ia nba bss at? <i>vnni<n>

twty prn my n a^a\n

i6.wj ^a niana mm rnabsii mns ^a ■wu nbsn anata ^ay nanai 15

nsiaa ^is nwb nayn b« nnasi nmnsi sa nnasi ^natr by yw a-ts

17 n? ^n« ay -q-6 nt ^ik nay bar mm :na ^nnsy sbi ny sts laam

is ans n*naa *a yn »")an pa m«w Kb no^:i na sa nttv^ «b nnyo ^«i

19 ■'npmnn w nanai p?m p?n -jb mbtr nnon ty\s «Tn b« i»fcri pipwn

rinpm ^a sin« nam nioLsi 20
3 ksi'1 "ski ana it? ay anbnb aity« nnyi mb« ^sa neb nymn nas^i
21 ^y ptnno "ins ^«i no« anaa ai^nn ns *]b th« ba« :sa ]v ntf mm
ii,s pnnab nojj nan tynnb nns nitya si«i : aaity b«a^o as sa nbs by

2 lb tun na« nnyi nb tiyabi
mpmavbaa bim itry TU>y ^y^anm anab anoy a^aba n«6» my mn 25

3 niii'iD ntyyi an btraa b^ai maj -jba layi :)r maba n« ban mys n^ya

4 ^btraa sbi imnKb sbi a^atyn ninn yaisb ^nrn imaba nat^n la^yai

:nbs naba annsbi imaba tynan ^ bti'a itrs
6.n fpbi nnbtrao ai ba>aa ba>ai vby prn^ n» |ai a>jn "jba ptmi

sbi ant^a miryb pssn "jba bs sian a::n -jba nai nanrp a^tr 30
npmai mb^rn rwaai sm ]wni ly^IV "lay sbi yntn ma ii*yn

:a^ya
7 ntryi ]ia^n -jba nyaa wi b^n^ ^a^nbs «yi ma qvrw nsaa nayi
s sas saa>a ann *)aa aman na ay arraaa ay an^nbs nai jpnnm ana
9 bs atri a:iin "jba mabaa sai : pasn -jbaa nay^ a^iy Kim ansa 35

nnaiN

» ny wm a^^i nayi *)6Bn sia «ai ann an^n pan laasi n^m i^iai

11 an ]ian mayni pssn "jba ay lay anbii ks^i awn "]ba nanami :.mya

13.12 "jba aen myn sbi msan b^am laab aim pann strii nma pann )mi

bim b^na sia sia^ a^tr a^nyn ypb) \wvcnn p ai pan maym jiasn 40

14 lKUtt1 "jay ^na ^ai awn *jba by nay^ a^ai ann a^nyai :an triaiai

«a niy'iti nnsaa my nabi nbbia *]B»«i )iasn *]ba sa^i nbt^aii ]im maynb

16 naiy pKi lai^na ins san tyyi nayb na )\si innaa ayi nay sb awn

17 anssn miaba b^s> *)pna siab ria b^m nma^nb^i ^asn psa nay^i visb

io -0H3O-S3- bwn -^-©^Ho- 9,7—10,5

"p :pxn ny bz bun wnaKi wip wate bs "ppa nm ipk D^aan 9,7
^1 dVbtp *nier»Vi rmrp er*6 rwn ova man npa la'n nprai ^k
:*p itya *ipk otyaa dp onnin ipk nwwn *?aa a^pnnm D-anpn b«ian
wnte san&6 i^b iasan ipk wna^i lanp^ wate^ D^asn npa ia^> mm g.s

5 na una ^ ninbam a^amn

vnay ma was^> jna *ipk wViha na^6 wnto mm topa iayap «^i
wty Wi T^pa V^v *rb?b "iDi imw n« nay ton^ bai ta^aan u
n« Dg*i n^> lasan »a tmtan nay ripa rrnna naina np« nyapm nV«n 12
np« nVra njn wty winb wasp ipk wasp tyi tfty nan ipk mm

10 npa rrona aina two j stoma nnpya np«s Dnapn ^3 nnn rimy: s1? 13
lMigo aip^ wnVK mm ^s n« ia^n «to wty nsa nam njnn bi n«
write mm p*ti "0 wty nx^i njnn ty mm npp^i qnaKa ^apnto 14

nVpa iayap ato hpj; np« vpya b ty
pym npjn Ta ansa p«o nay n« rttcnn ipk write win nnyi id

1 5 nrya -jnam *j£s «a ap11 yipis fea <3ih naypi la^an run ova dp ^ 16
^ nsinb *pyi b^pit wnaa rnai^m waana a "pnp "in d^pit
"75? -pas ism lwann tei -pay nVsn te write yap nnyi {wnaaD 17
Twy nnps yapi faiN \nte nan pjtk <"pay> jya^ a$?n -jpipa is
tanas wnpns by t6 a mty "jap «np: np« Tym wnbeW ns-n

20 nnbo w« nycp w« JD^ann T-om by ^2 yish waiann d^^bd 19
•pry "?j; K"ipa idp v "rbtt ~pyvb nnsn ■?« n'pjn na^ppn ,|ii«

n»v ^

win ^bdi ^sips s»y nsam TiKan minai ^snei lane ^« mjn a
^«naa p^ni n^sna larvo ^s mj;i :\n^« pip in by v6k nins ^sb 21

25 ^ay naTi p;i :anj? nn:a nj;a ^m yja >*]^sa ^a n^nna ]ima w«i ip« 22
sn«a ■•iKi nai «^^ i^imn n^nna : wa -j^apn1? ■"jiks^ nny ^s^i naN^i 23

jrunaa )am nana pai nns nman »a vsrb
tiynfyi ypsc tgvfab "jpnp "17 Vj;i -jay by ^nna D^ap D^ap 24
:nspnp pnp npa^i s^aai pm onnbi D^aby pns s^an^i pj; nsa^i n«»«an

30 nyap D^ap t»aa n^pa nj; d^pit maa^i a^pn"? ian «^a p ^spm j?nm na
D^apn nn«i so^n p«ai ynm aim nnaaai aipn d^pi d^pp D^api 26
ispi «an n^aa dj; n^np11 anpm n^ni ^ )s«i n^pa ma"1 d^pi d^Pp
wn in« vup D^a-i1? nna Taam :maap nsnna nanba pp tj^i *]apa 27
^nn nsnna^ n^a nyi oaipa a^ipp <w& by) nnaai na? rrap^ yiapn

35 :DaiP by

-7-5"

-i^spa^a iap «npa x\s b^an^ n^aa nan ons "\bn vncb pi"?p napa io,«

:nmaa )b na^ai iann ns pai ^na «asi nann na«i
40 nnan on^ :D^a^ D^ap np'?p ^a«na wn ^^t sa« D.nn D^a^a 3-2

D^ap hpVp n*6» ny ^nao «^ moi ^s ^s «a «b ]«i ipai ^n^as h1?

:d^
«in bnan -man t "?y w^n ^aai )ip«nn pin^> nyan«i d^pv ovai 4
onaa onan ranai a^a Pia'? nns p^« nam niki wy ns «P«i ♦.'rpin n

8,1—9,6 -oH3«S-S$- V*on ■fcS-©»ES*>-

I 2

8,s nn« te^an UN hs nana pm iten 'rawte mste1? wbv naa»a
2 n^jn ■«?« mvan pwa uki mans \mi ]imn ntn«i tntena ste n*nan

pVik tew te vt*n sa«i pma n«n«i nanon
s a^aipm a^aip iVi te«n ^aa1? inv "in« ^« nam n«n«i wp raw
4 naao bwn ns w*n :nannsa nte nn'aam matm p nnaa nnsm mnaa 5

u5ra nvy) ite ^Sfi psi vaa^> nay *6 mm tei maai naiasi n»s
n pan te \>a te anyan p ra nnjm tbs nam pe wm uki :teiam

6 x*« a^anpn tea ^«n ny van :wy pa mm pp Tssni pra yaia p«i

7 tbtdjvi tesn te« raa rrram : ma nam vte p^i te*jn ^aa1? nay wsi
vaab myb Vwa na nm «>n mp w n« natsM tesn n« ti vte 10

s ikb ny ^nan anyn tbsi :rra ^*6 ^sa mn &6i moa-vi mriK marten
mnn ya-is1? mnnn yan« m<>m«> na^ym ntean ppn tram i&syai

9 nntan tei aaan te nm team nTy3» jvwin pp ar ana nn«n pi
" :aaaim a^aaian pi aasn p rww tern a^atyn Has ny team pasn tei 15
12. 1 1 j^a*3 cv«asi nenpo paa ij^mi Tann n^n> laaai ^nan Nasn nt? nyi

jnmtem nncyi nsn« nas ^mv y^aa Tann te

13 ma ny na*ian ^aiate*? trnp tin na^i nana trnp ina njMMPKi

14 ipn any ny <i>^te *i»*n :aaia rasi tsnpi nn nm ypam Tann ]imn

jtJHp pii'ai mNo t^tei d^s'ps 20
ib n*n&a niA noV nam na^a n^pa«i pmn r.« bwn ^ ^nLsna m^i

16 :n«n»n n« ;te^ ]an tenaa no^i .sip^i ^is )sa an« 'np ^atyksi :iaa

17 n^ "o ai« p ]an ^« i&k^i sas te nte«i ^ny.aa lsaai ^oj; tes sa^

18 ptbjj te ^Tfi^ sa ya^i nsn« ^aa te Tiianna ••oj; naiai :)imn p

19 jp lyvsb 13 Dym nnn«a mm "itj\s n« *]j;^^ ^an n»N,i 25
21.3 jp -]te Tjwn Tssm tonsi ho ^te a^anpn tea m«i i^« b\^n

22 jdtk naneym niatram qwfcnn "[ten sm vrv p i^« nVnan ppm

23 anna ornate nnn«ai nnaa xb) nanov=m -viara m»ate yans imnnn

24 mnty> msteai maa xbi ma d^vi Jmmn poi n^aa ty "]te nay^ n^an

n= iT3 n»"ia n^tem itetr by) iwmrp dj?i n^aisy rwwm myyi mtem 3o
:"i3^i -;i ca«ai ^oJ;, Q,i^ *w tei a^an nm^"1 mteai ^na1 Datei

26 n^^ ^3 pmn aha nn«i «m no« no^a x\s npam anyn n«noi

:a^a-i

27 camuM *]ten na«te n« nB>j?Ni aip«i a^^ m^nai m^ma bwn sa«i

:]^ao ]\si nxnon te 35

9,« : dheo mate te *]ten *w« *Tfi j?"»t» am3»n« ]a tyim^ nn« natr3

2 mn'1 nan nm ia>s n^airn "iaoo anaaa m'a'o te^aT ^a« lateb nn« natra

3 te ■'aa ns namst :naty a^aty ateiT mannb mste^ K^aan ns0T te% 40

4 mte mrrt nteanxi :ns«i pm Bi^a a^aianm nVan ti'pa'? a\ntem ^anx

jwiya n&u6i vans'? nanm nnan noty js-nam ^nan ^«n ^ai« «as
6.n -jH3j; te lavoiy «^ :-pftww»i ^nisnn nai lannoi lay^im ia^i ia«an

Dan. 2

8 -oH3«s>k* bion ^s>et*>- 7,1—28

naawo ty ntr«n *ijrn nm Dte btvn tea nte i»M&ta^ mn nitsra 7,*

new Swan naj> na« pte ty«-i ana K&te p«a 2

yanw J«ai kb^ wa» wet? "nn yans n«i k^ ny Mjna mn nm 3

,-6 -wa *i pun nmta NJVDip :in p *n j;ap k&' p ]pte piai )pn 4

s aa^i ntrpn tw«a pba") tyi wn« P nbw\ 'T?J i&ma *i "W mn nm

nten nop'n' nn iBte6i a-ib nnan nran nn« nrn n«i jn1? aw tw« n

t J* t: t t- —

nrn mn insa twatp 10a -tea vara nb p&K pi nsat? T>n nesa pyty 6
Knyn1? ptnn nyaiKi nraa fy^iy *i yaiK pea nto nora nn« n«i mn
nWn wyrai nrn n«i ^b wo mn ntn nan nn«a :n^> aw pbyfi 7

10 n^ana ktkpi nppi ntes pnan nb bns n pjan mw Karani ^now
mn tenti>» :n^> ntpy panpi n^Tfc n «nvn te p traBto «w nosn 8
npyna Knpnp wanp p ntei jwara nfcte rrvjn nn« pg ito« wanpa
ipnan ^te» dbi «n aanpa «t^i« w.ya pay Aw nnanp p
nyfci njn ateo' ntyra1? an> pov pnyi von para *i ny mn ntn 9

15 psii naa -in h in: :p^ ma wW?a ma n parity nrara apa n»sra ntr*o «
pnaai an* van pJaip"* wonp pran ram nawet^ fll«rate *)■?« wonp p
ny mn nm *6tec «aip n ana-ian wte ^p p pitta nm nm jwns u
mj>n «npn i^jtsn :«t^« mpA nawi nctyj law. «nvn n^tap h 12
nw*«w ^ima n^in nrn :pjn ]ot ny pn1? naw pna nan«i \\7\xbti 13

20 :mmpn wonpi nao wov pny nyi «m nn« {y2« -qd woty ^ ay
p^ naoto pn^D"1 n1? wa^i w»« w»ov !?ai d^oi npi )ta^ ans n'ri 14

t'Jannn «*? *i nnia^oi mjf; «"? n a^V
nn ^ n?ip j^nai ^«n <imi *ijt^ waa ^m na« w.i nnantji i6.i»
1^« naayTW wVo ntrsi ^ now nri ^ ^ n:i3 «va« aa^i w»«p )» 17

25 aniate jitepi : «v"ik ]o ]ioip^ ]o"?» nvan« yan« put *i «nana-i «npn 18
«a^"? n^a^ p« tMnabp a^y nyi «o^y nv «niate )i»m ]^v"?j; wp 19
nnstai ^ns h ww nnw n^m pnVa ]o n^:^ njn n «n^^an «nvn by
nn«i niy«-ia n "ityy wnp "?vi :noai n^:na «i«tyi npp n!?a« t^n: n 3
mtm ]aia-i ^00 ddi nb p:rjn i?i fctiipi nbn nwp io ^s:i np!?o n

30 nny j^ n"?an jn^np ay anp «nay pi «aipi mn nm jnnian p 3122.21
xrwbm n&B «:on pav^y «np^ an1 vttebm an^ Kim w»v p-ny nn«

ipt^np iapnn
ba p «at^n n Kynsa «inn wy^an rate «n^yran «nrn iok p 23
n-wy Knrate naa nt^y wnpi jaap^w naKhni «yi« te team Knrate 24

35 :tetyn> irate nnbni wonp p Mann mm ]nnn« nip^ pn«i pop^ irate
parrm mi piot 'nymb nao^i Kte^ ^an^y ^np^i ^ «^y n^1? ptei na
mot^n1? py,T ff&hm a^ mm :py atei i^aiyi py ny mra 26
wdp te mnn nrate n «ma"n Katstei Knratei jkbid ny main^i 27
)mte^ n1? witste tei D^y nrate nnrate pavty ^np ay1? raw

40 :pyon^i

^y pajsttr" '•vn ^n;s wjn wa» "?w:t n:« «nte ra «sid na ny 28

:nniDa rate «ntei

6,2—29 -~K3**»K- bWil •«■©'•»*>- 7

6,2 ]inb n ptryi hnb *oa©nntfnKb an-obo by o^pni Brnn anp nst?

3 tfi&nntfn« pn1? n jirao "in' town n nnbn pna pnao fc6yi :«mabo tea

4 by ns:no mn mi b«\n p« :pn sinb «b Naboi aoyo pnb jot pb«
te by nniopnb iwy Kaboi na otw nn n tep te K^snnpnNi mano

n «n«te nso ba^nb nnatynb nby pya nn k^byhmimi K^ano p« janiabo s
nnwi itos> bai sin ]o\no n tep te nnatwib rbas «b nnvwi nby tei

6 te n:n tooanb natf m «b n po« n,b« «naa p« : vriby nnanpn «b

7 by wain )b« ftrotfrnmm mans pa inntot ma \niby «ina»n )nb nby

8 k^jb Nniabo sana te lByyiN ;m pobyb tobo »im nb pan pi Nate
*yy n te n id« napnbi sate n;p nospb «njnai anann mienntfoKi io
:«np« Bib Nonn> «abo "po ),nb pnbn yw ly mx) nba te }o lya

9 vh n disi no ma ,YJu\nb «b n anna Btahm nibn n^pn aabo jya

:KnBKi xans oen pmn «ab» mn tep te JKnjfn
ii m: nn^bya nb jovib p.ai nmab by nans bush n yr na bmam

te nnb« onp tmoi Nteoi smana by nna wn «ova nnbn pon atosnY i5

12 nya bK<:nb msvrn wjnn n,bN «naa pK :mn nonp p naj; Kin n bap

i3 ien «bn *obo no« by «abo mp po«i ianp p«a :nnb« mp pnnoi

«aba "po pb pnbn pav ny t^a«i nb« ba p «ya^ n tya« ba n nam

«b n Dial no ma «nbo «a^^ ioki «abo mx> «nm« ai:b Ko-in'1

T T T

i4 «b mn^ n unite sia ]o n b«^n n «abo mp ]no«i lay pan :«^n 20
:nniya «ya «ova nnbn )^:on notyi n «id« byi nyo «abo t^ d^

io nnnmb ba djj> b^n byi Niiby t^«a «^ty yots> «nbo na «abo p«

i6>sabo by wz~\n ^b« «naa p«a :nmbsnb -nntyo mn «^oty nj;o nyi
a^pn^ Kabo n o;pi id« ba n oiai nob m n «abo yi Nabob poai

i7 »abo najj «nin« n «a^b loni bs^nb vnyn no« «abo ;n«a jn^nb «b 25

18 no^i mn )a« n^n\m jijaat^ mn «inna nb nbs nn:« n-jnb« b«^nb no«i
:b«^na nx «a»n «b n »miatn nptyai nnprya «abo nonm «aa ns by

19 mi nniBh Mionp byn xb )imi nio nai nba^nb «abo br« p«

s :bts «mn« n «a:b nbnannai wmia nip^ «-isna^a «abo ]n«a pniby
21 lay bfcTin b«^nb io«i «abo nijj pyr yvy bpa b«^nb «aib nanpoai 30
22,n« :«nn« ]o ^mamb ba^n «inna nb nbs nni« n -jnb« «sn «nb«
23«nnN db iiDi na«bo nbty \nb« :«n )^obyb «abo bbo sabo ny b«^n

«b «bian «abo ^onp *)«i n nnantrn laj \monp n bap ba ^iban «bi
24pDni «a: ;o npoinb no« btvrb) smby a«o N\3ts> «abo )n«a :may
nsrmm «abo io«i :nnb«a )o\i n na nan^n «b ban bai «ai p b«^i 35

prrvai p.Tia pi« 101 «nm« aabi bton n \n^np iba« n *]b« «na:
npnn )in^ou bai «nm« )ina lobty n ^y xai nsyi«b 100 «bi
26«yi« baa \n»n n «s:^bi «^o« «^ooy bab ana «abo trim p«a

27 ]o |nmi yyxi pnb ^mabo ;obty baa n nyo ow ^onp )o skj^ )iaobty
bannn «b n nmaboi ]^obyb n^pi kti «nb« «m n bmn n nnb« mp 40

28 b«^:nb anty n «yi«ai wotya pnom ^n« nayi bsoi artfo : wbid ny niobtyi

:«nn« t )o

29 :^dib tma maboai tyim niaboa nbsn mn bKTn

6 -~H3»«-s* "wri «*©»ei*— 5,4—6,1

<nb«b inaan anon wpn jnninbi nnbjp \nuanani «ab» pna wbwi5,4

:«ia«i «y« Nbns apm kbdbi Nam
bna *i «n^ by Kntrn: bagb jaroi twa t *i ]j>asK ipsa ans?^ na n
\iyjm top wt Na'ba pN :«ana n nt db nm nab^i nabo *i «ba\n 6

s bTia nabtt trip :^pa tnb «t nnaanKi pnpe nnn ntspi naibna; 7
n tMK ba n baa nyanb -iosi Nabo nij; «nwi «n^a wzmb nbynb
map by nam h Ka*>»ro t?ab^ NijnK ^airr bt»m nn nans mp
mpob Nana pbna «bi aabo nran ba ;^bby ps :&bt^ Kmab&a *nbnv 8
\-nby \>2& flwi bnano «^» nsKPba Nabo p« : wa^D1? njrnnb k<wbi 9

io nbby *onpo rvab TOaiaii aabo sbo bapb «na^o :]want?B TOaiam «
: lapity ba ■pw "TWJP "P^1 ^ "0 P^byb Kab» m»«i anabo niy
noani lanbafen rnij lias wai na penp pnbN nn n inisboa na: ^n« u
p*rwa pPN pstnn an man "ixnaiaa «ab»i na nnantrn pb« noana
pebn -vPed5 nnbafen jrum mw nn *i bap ba tnabe -paa nirpn pu 12

is -iSKPtsba naty bp *ob» n btma na nnantyn pop *op>i ptik rvjrott

trnrfir rnt?Bi nprp ^n )ya
btwn Kin nn:« b*wib nasi Ksbo rojj Nab» mp byn b«m p«a 13
nn n ^by riyopi :w p ^a« «ab» wn n w n anibj sia p n i4
sv^an wip ibyn, iyai :*p nnantwi nrff naam unbaten lYn^apiba 1t0

20 : iTinnb «nVo lira pbna k^ ^nynm1? atiw ]nps ni"i nana *i «^aty«
«ana ^am jn ]ya sntfo1? ]nopi -ityaob ]ntya bain n n^v ngtaty ni«i 16
*QbJ?i Ti«« by warn n «D^>om tyabn «ipi« »anurpnb mtyai wnpo1?

jtaVt^n wmaVoa
an pn«b in;ata:i j^nb i1? inino «aba nij? no«i "?«^i n:j; p«a 17

25 snia^D K^y'whbK Nate nm« :napm« ki^bi nabo1? «np« sana nna is
«^»oj; ba nb ans n «niai pi nu« n^inaai1? an^ «"nm mgi snmi 19
«as mn *n bv\> nin «a^ «in n ^nionp p i^mi pv«r tin &rits6i «^bjj
naab m. nai :!?Btya «in «as «in *n one nin «a^ mn m «no nin 3
^a pi :nan mj|n <n>p^i nniabo «ona i» nnin mjnb nspn nnm 21

30 nii»v»s |mna Kat?y nine «nnv nyi •>,,1^ «nrn ay naabi Tno «iyiK
kv*k maboa «"by «nb« o^jy n v^, ^ iV va^^ not?: wat? bam
bap ba laab ^vn «b is^ty^a nna nna«i :n^y n^<T Kn^ ^ ^ 22
yonp vmn nma n w^Kobi noonnn «^o» h^o byi :nyn^ nil ba n 23
Htrm «an'm «bdb snb«"?i pm po» «nisn in:nbi *]nbiiy fiaiaii nw«i

35 nnDi^i n Knbt6i nnaty pjrr «bi 1^0^ »bi nn «b n «ia«i kjjk «btns
«anai «ns n «db n^ty vmsTp p ]n«a trrnn «b nb ^nnn« bai ara 24

D^an n «ana nm :nnsn nil na

:)sdibi bpn «:d «jd
K"it^oa wnbpn bpn jaeb^ni ^iabo Hnbs nio km »r\bn ntys mn 27.26
40 :d*ibi nob na^n^i imabo nans dib 5^an nnant^ni 28

by nam n loSom H3jrw btonb wabni isn^ba -io« p«a 29
i^«^ba b-'Bp «^b^ba na : *™b»a «vnb^ o^bty «mb n %mby pam mitp ^
jpmm ^nty paty naa «rnabo bap «no tyinm :«nt^a KDbo6,«

4. 1 1 —5.3 -«**3«©-s$- 'wn -*3-s>ei*>- 5

4,iiH-pi iTbp una vnwp mpi «i"?\s nS ids pi ^nn «i|3 :nm mm

isKpian warn* 1^ Din pttimp ]e man \nnnn p snvn i:n nniK

wwi Dvi pawr trow torn Kin n KKmn t?roi Sne n iidkdi ipn»

13 pip npntri n^> nnyp kiti ami jimp K^«iN p nnn1? 5 kpik nfcpn np^n

i4]ipir *i mm 6>p KnbKt? pKnip idkoi «»5ns ]n^ mm rmf?p pator 5

D"ps 4MWK 'rstri niin"1 Kn:r *i fljto kb>«sk niatea toVp b^p n k»tj

»idk tn^a ixNtyB^a nnsKi isnaiai Kn^>» m« mn «o^n nil :n^»

nn n Vnn nnJKi ^nipnn1? kih>b p^ k^> TiDte wan m n mp m

♦•p jnpip ^k

16 nsj; n^nns \i':spn Kin npt?a D»mts>K ixNtyam nap *i ^i pK 10
\xid idki isstyam n:p l^nn^ bx »y&s\ K»f?n isKtyam ibki Kate

17 fc«3B6 kbb* nam ipm nm n ivm *i k^k :tV? rntyD'1 TSiB^ nd^i
is inn smnhn nn Km1? }i?»i ww roam tbp n^api :«pi« m^> nmmi
i9PDpm ^tyj n jofo Kin nnjK two* *i»s jiatP MiBipni sin nrn

a ampi np Knm mn hi jkpik rpD1? "pB^tsi wbb6 n<B&i nm ytfom 15
ipnt? KpiKn vnm» >j?'P Din \nmni k^k ni ibki K^Bty p nm
Kia mn dpi pbbjp wbb> b\ay\ Kia n KKma t?mi toia h iidkdi

21 h km n^p mpi Kn*?B kipb nn pmVp p^m pip npn» n np npbn

22 «n»pi i^a mn1? «nn nvn dpi «fcyn« ]d pttb ^i :«n^o wio ^p n«*o>D

n np i^p iiubn^ pwp npntyi ^psso "p «^ty btsoi ]idpd^ ^ pinn 20

23 pnu'D^ ne« m : nsin^ «n^s n \^fy\ h&m ninbon «sVp d^ n pmn

24 «nV» in1? t«>Dtr ]to^ h pn:n n p no»p i1? imn^D «a^K h ■•mtsnty >p^p
tfn^H6 nm« ninn p |;ip ]npn *]n;jpi pns npn^n *];oni T^p isty "oVd

26.n3 «nDte b\n ^»p i»p nn pnT mpV j«n^o nsnnni *?p xdd «Vn

27 nn^n' n:« n «nm ^nn «\n kt K^n id«i «n^D mj> :nm ^Vne ^nn n 25

28 ^Bi M^cty p bp nn^o Dsn «nVc mp :mn np^i ^on ?]pnn d^d no1?

29 nvn Dpi )niD -]b mm \m qio mp Knmte «n"?D nsinnin: ]no« ^
pmn n np "]^p )iD^n: pip npn^i )idpd^ ^ ]mnn «ntyp miD Kin

^ nDD Kn'v'D Knp^> nn :n3ins 1^^^ n vo^i k^« nin^Dn «^p d^ h
pnD^^ nctyj K^iy 'tcdi bw )ninn sntypi tib k^^m pi isnmni *?p 30

:)siBan MiiBDi nm jn^in nipty n ip

31 s^pbi mns st?p ^nitti n^Di «^^ ^yp isiinini m« «%v mp^»i
:ni n dp nmn"?Di d^p pbw niD^ n mini nnnty kd'pp ^nVi nmn

32 ^n^K «^>i «piK n«n K^ty ^nn mj; n^n^Dm pwn nbn kpik n«i ^>m

33 ^nm^D >p'^i ^p nms yjiD k^d? nn :mnp no T\b iam m^n sn:?^ n 35
nrn< mn no>pnn ^nm^D ^>pi )ipns minn ">min ^1 ^p nin^ ^vti mn

34 MimpD bi n N^aty i^o^ nn»i doiidi nn^D i^iinni n:« ]pn j^ n?Din

jn^Dtyn1? ^ m:n yybnn hi ]h nnnisi owp

40

5,« :nn^ Nion «£*?« ^>np>i «)^k \niimm1? m Dr6 mp Kn'pa isstym

2 isainna psin n Ksom «nni ^kd^> nwrf? «ion op^n id« iskb63
jnnan1?! nn1?:^ Miimnn «nte )inn ynm D^n^n n «^\n p Min«

3 D^irn >i xnbx nsn h n^m ;d ips:n n «NDDm» «nm ^«d iwn p«n

4 -««3«©-S<* ^K'n *»©>•»*>- 3,16— 4,io

pWDB saafcy corpp> NH'pntya wip bp pyatyn n anya n pTiy pawN 3
na p*nan »b p\ nnay n «afc6 p^ani p^sn tnet w ^>ai nnaaiai *
pt ja paaaw h n^« sin ]a=i «mps ton pn« an1? pannn «n»^
torus pntfn &6 <«Dbo> >2>:naia3 tabzb paaai hu nn^i ^a "pit? tip 16
s p Mnttj4$ by pn"?s «im« n junto vro )n qmanrf? Dins nn by I7
-jntob n aaba *ft «inS> ym j6 pi tsevr jote 77 pi «mp jnu pn« 18

naw vb na^pn n Nam ab^i pnto jujvn j6
nayi "pa "pip *?y wnty« vnMK n^i Kan ^»nn -isan^ia: pi«a I9
bm na:i pna^i jiTta^ nm n ty nyat? -in juwj6 Nta> law naj> ua 3

10 ; amp"1 jrna p«6 Kana1? 13: nayi t&»b "pnts6 rv^ef? "ibk r6ma n
«i^ ron pnwab pnnJJa-Di pnwas pnnanaa msa sjto Knaa" p«a 21
iiTff nt« juwni nssnii joba n^o n p nri bap ba :wvrp jnia pr»« 22
snail :mw n Nanty pan bap ua nayi i»ns tto1? lppn n $$ Knaa 23
p« s pnsaa «mp* htw pn« Kiab ibsa iaa nayi "j^a tvw pnnbn ^« 24

is nnbn pnaa j6n mnaTib ibni nay nbnanna Dpi nin Kaba irunaiaa
«n taw naj> : aaba «a«r aabab pna«i py pnsaa snia si:1? jwbi na
n nm pna tik «b bam «ma sua pa^na* p» nyans piaa nm n:«

:pn^»« la1? no'i «^ai
"jt^D "j-nty losi najj «mps «nii )in« p.nb n^inaiai anp )n«a 26

20 ui nayi "jt^a ynv i^pa: ;n«a m«i ips k^j? «n"?« n \nnaj; iaa najn
sna^ pjn «a^o naim «ninai «^ip H^sm^ns i^ianoi : «"ii: «i j )o 27
ii» *6 piT^aiDi ipnnn w1? ]inty«i nyiyi pn^oK'ia snii taVty «"? n *]^«
"1^^ 7n» h pnn^M t13 1q{?1 iswani n:j; :pna rny vb in nm 28
inty «a^o nVoi Mi'jy isn-inn n \nnav1? at^i na«te nbty *i laa nayi

25 dj?b d^ ^ci {pnn^i6 ]n^> pb» b^b \ni& vbi yribw xb n prnDtfj ian^i 29
xiaa iayi "]sy>o -jmty >n )innV« by rfyfr nos^ n pb) n»« dv ^>a n
n^n1? ^ *i pn« nb« v\s xb n "?ap ^a nint^ ^12 nn^ai navn*1 pain
j^aa nanaa laa nayi ^ty^a ~[~nwb n^n «D,{?a ]n«a :ninD b

3°

)iaa^ «p« "?aa p*n n N^a^i «sa« «^aay ^ «a^a nsnaiaa 31
naa Mins :iTjnn^ ^anp isty «^y »nb» ^ay nay h K^nani «^n« {ftuter 33.32

mi ti ay naab^i n"?v niD^o nniate ),a,pn naa \mnani )^aia*i
pnnm ^n-n nnn a^n :^asnap5"»i waa n^in n^ i^:naia: na« 4,2.x

35 ^aa ''a^an ^d"^ ^anp rbmb aya a^ nai :^na^ w*n ^lmi ^as^a "?y 3
«a^ni «nwi «nti>D «ssty« s^aann p^y pn«a raajpirp «a"?n nt^a *i 4
n ^«^n ^anp by p*>rj8 i:V3i -^ py"iina «"? mtyai prronp na« "ia« n
:ni.as \manp «a^ni na pt^np i^n1?^ nn m \n^« atsb "isstya'ja naty
a:« «•? n 'pai Tja pamp pnV« nn n nyT. na« n «saain an i^xtya^a 6

40 na« nn^ai mn n ^a^n Min ^

nan :«,»:^ nam njhk «ua ]^« i^ki mn nm ^aa^a by wtr\ nmi 8.7
naiKi TBty n:sy :«yn« *?a ^id1? nnimi s^aty1? «aas nam *)pni «i^« 9
K^aty nss ]tit \niB:yai sna nvn Vban minhn na ^Va1? |itai »w
p tynpi ^y i"?ki ^aae»a "?y ^m ima mn nm :«ntyn *?a ]nns niai '

2,36— 3,i5 -«**3<3#<«- ^rri -$8-s>ea~- 3

2,37.36 p6» n *oaba "jba KBba nnaa jssba Dip ia«a ?n»6i «abn nil

38nvn RtftH sa3 pm *- baai j"ib am fcnpn NBpm wan Knoba *wop

39 mnai : Ham n win nban Tabts>m Tra an11 wet? myi ma

baa tabtrn n Ntfna *i n iabai t^o njn« nn« laba aipn

0 btrm pnna mns *i b. 53 rw«pn Ninn n^b-i iBbai tKjnn 5

41 pnae Knjnxm wby\ nr.\. vi pin pb« bB yyp n mnsai ma
na twib mns *i unasa pi mnn na^bfi iBba bns pnaDi "ins n *pn

42 pnaai bns pnaa loton nyasKi : iwa *pna anjp mns nmm *i bap bB
43mnB mm *w« jnman Kinn naai ns^pn mnn KniBba mp p *pn

nan ay run Xpm pnb mi mwk pta pnb pnyna iwb *pna anjp 10
44nbK nsp> pan maba *i pmavai :«aon ay a*iyna m mns *b «n

••]prn pin pawn m pn« ayb nniabai bannn m pabyb *i iaba mat?
napg mpnK miaa *i mm *i bap ba jmabyb aipn mm Nniaba ]b« ba

mbab ymn an p6k Kami nbbb iwnaa Kbnsx kbdh<3> njwni pra m *i

jhwb pviai Nabn aw nan nn« Kin1? *i na 15
46*iok pmai nnaai naa bmnbi vnwn by baa isanaiaa mba pm
47 mai pnb« nba mn panb« *i a^p p naKi b^anb mba naj; :nb naaab
48)313-1 pnai *ai bmnb mba p« :nan «n «bapb nbs^ n pn nbii ^abo

:ba3 vron bs by j^ao 3-11 b33 na^a ba by naWm nb 3n^ ]K^aty
49 laa n3yi *]^» mn^b n «m^ay by *aai Kabia p «ya bK^am 20

:«3b» ynn3 b«sani

3,« n^ ^b« ppjpB pn» v»k non 3m n nb^ nsy «3b» nsanaiaa

2 s^asni^nKb tyasiab nbty «3bo -utaiaiaai :ba3 nanca «nn nypas no^p« 25
«n»b Nnano ••abbty bai «snsn nnsm «nsna KntamK «ninsi «^aan

-" • T I • 1TI ITI ITI--I T I ■

3 waaD K^asn^nK i^aano i^«a :«3b» isanaiaa n^pn ^ «»bs nsanb
Nfibs nsanb wwio ^aitDbty bai N^nsn «nam «naia «ntam« Nninsi

\ -Ti- tii 1 1: :« 1 - t

4 trip «tnai Jisanaaa n^pn n «obs b3pb )^«pi «3bo isanaiaa n^pn h

n MrrpnvD «aip bp pyot^n n «a"nya :«^bi «^« «^oy ]no« pab» b^na 30
n «am abub pnaoni pbsn «not sa? bai n^aspiD jnnaDB «bb^ vyyp

6 piw Kiab «onn^ «n^ na naon bs1 «b n ^1 : «3bo nsai3i3a n^pn

7 «n»pntyo «anp bp ^o»y b3 pyo» na «aw n? nan b3p bs :«mp^ *nia
«^at^bi «s»« «^ooy b3 pbsa «i»t ^at bai «nsas»iD» pBaoa «33b> a-in^'

8 nip waat na nan b3p ba :«3ba nsanaiaa n^pn n Nam nbxb )nao 35

9 «3ba «3ba isanaiaab pojo lay !O.T n pnnnp iba«i )s«ntr3 pia:
» wpntwa «anp bp yoty^ n vm b3 n nya r\a^ «3ba nna« :«n pobyb

11 pi $«am absb t|ot bs^ «nat ^at bsi «^bsdi pnaps «aatr Dqn^

12 n^aa n )sshi<t p"iaa sn« tMmy N"iia ]ir\« «iab «ain^ naan bs^ «b n
T'by iaty «b }b« s^^a laa nayi "]ty^a n™ b33 nana nVay by pnrv 40

rpaa «b^na^pn n nam nbsbi i^nbs «b -jnb«b aya «aba

13 ihn3 laa nayi "jty^a mntyb n^nb ia« Nam ma -miBiaa )n«a
i4-ti"a t™ «^]«>n ]inb na«i "isa*i3i3a naj> :«Bba nip rn\n ^b« anaa
iB ]n ;ya :]naa «b na^pn n nam nb^bi )^nba ]iBsm«'«b -7ib«b laa nayi

2 -«*«««s-s$- b*rn ♦^•s>eno- 2,5—35

"iBiai K37D niy JK1&3 K"«atei "p^ Kobn 10k «n po?y7 K3?o a,n
paynn i/oin nntrBi KD7n •osipinn vb p k-ttk *ae nnVo K«jtso7
p73pn K\a&? Tjpi naraii pno yinnn mtpsi KD7n pi :jiobw ^jj pavai 6
now KD7n K3?o poKi niijsn iiy Piinn iTwbi KQ7n p7 n^p p 7

5 pniK Ki^y *i niK vt asr p "ioki «^ 3 my tninna rrwsi \nnay7 s
mn ^iinn K7 Ko?n p n :«n"?o *ao «-it« *i pmn *i 73p 73 pint 9
Kint^ kW 'i IV "o~jp "ioko? pmo^p nnntyi na*p n^oi pm iwi

:\iiinnn iis n yiiKi ^ noK KD7n p7
K3?o nVo n «ntys'1 ?y pjk vw k? poKi K370 Dip wwa iiy

10 Dbin 737 ?Kty K7 nii3 n?o o^i 3-1 *]7o ?3 n 73p ?3 rrprt tor
K37D onp naiir n sn« K7 pn«i nrp» W' n3?o n Kn?oi ptboi *]#ki n
*ppi Din K3?o nil ?3p 73 jvwvk k? k"W3 oy pnnno *i prAn in1? 12
iyai p?opno «"o^ni npsi «mi :?33 ^an 737 ni3in7 -ioki kw 13

:n70pnn"? \inam ?K\n

i5 n?op7 psi *i K3?o n wnso 3-1 "]in«? ayoi kbj> a^nn bwn pK3 i4
p nssnno «m no *?y K37D *i kb^ "jmK? ioki nij; :?33 wan? »
jot n «370 p Ky3i ?y 7^*11 !?K\n7 nnK jnm Kn7D p« K3?o Dip 16
rmijn ?«^o n^sin?i 7t« arrcA 7«^np« :K3?D7 iTinn? K-^Bin1? py 17
87 n nil «n 7y K^oty n7« Dnp p «yno7 )^omi tjmn «n70 won 18

20 jVnn ^nn n«tr oy \nmrn 78^iT p3in>

nij; j 8^0^ n7«7 7^ 7*oin p« ^7^ «n h^W h 8imn 7^ii7 ]h« 3.19
«noDn s"i «07V nyi «07y p 7150 «n7« h noi wrb idki 7«siT
]O70 Dipnoi )O70 mj;no «sion «^y «it^no Mini :«m H7 n «niiaii 2I
nop; sninooi wnp^oy «7i Kin :nri ■•jrrt Kyiioi )^oon7 Knonn an; 22

25 Knoan n ni« nn^oi Knino snnaK n7K ^ : K^ noy KTnii KDitynn 23
jKinpin kd7o n"?o n "jio Ki^yn n ^npin )yai ^ rewr Kmiaii

7tK 733 ^0^3n7 Kn31<17 K370 siO ^ "jriK 7y 7y 7K^iT niT 73p 73 24

:KinK K3707 K1ty31 K370 Dip tf$n latfTTl 7K 733 so^n^ .17 10K pi

i3i nnsiyn n a? "iok ]3i K370 tnp bwyb byin nSnsnns -jvik pK na

30^1 7K^in7 noKi K370 mj; :ymns K3707 Kitrs n nin^ n Kni7i si3 p 26

7KsiT nij; jjn»Bi nn.n n Kobn sinnm7 7,13 iwKn i^Ktyo73 noty 27

I^S"1 pW )^00nn l^t^K )^Os3n K7 7K^ K370 n KH 10K1 K370 Dip

no n^in3i3i K37D7 jnmi |*n n7i K^ot^n n7K wk d*i3 :k3707 ,Tpn7 28
K370 n^iK :Kin nsn 133^0 7y -j^k-i sitm "jo7n k^ov nnnK3 Kin1? n 29

35 h no -jpm Ksn K7ii mn nn« Kin? n no ipbo "j33{yo 7y ^iryi
•?y p7 b b: nin Kn K»n 73 p s3 w« H no3n3 k? niKi jKin7 b

:yiin "J337 ^ivym py-nrr K3?o? ktob h nn3i
DKp wp mm 3i ]3-i ko?s K^t^ in d?s i?ki ri^in nrn K3?o nniK 31
\niyo *]dd n ^myim mn 30 3m n nt^Ki ko?^ Kin j^m nni "j73p7 32

40 nrn :*)on n pnioi 7ns n )inio \ni?ii ?ns n mipty :^ni n nnsTi 34.33
k7tid n \ni7in by ko^1? rvn^oi p^3 k? n )3K nnpnn h ny n^in
Kami kdd3 K^ni K?nDx KBDn<2> mna ipn p«a :)ion np^m Ksom n1?
n KiaKi \\rb nan^n K7 ttik ?bi «nn )ion KLyii o^p *tck p mys 11m

JKyiK 73 HK^OI 3"! 110^ r^lfl KD7S? n^«

V

io

i,« baa -jba nsKanaiaa «n mi.T ~fm ny\w maba"? vrb& nat?

2 nsjjai mirr ^o av/in^ n« its *aiK jrvi srpty nm d^btit
wan a^an n«i wdk n^a nyaa> p« dk^i pntan rva ^>H

svr6« nsiN iva

3 jntai tonap ^aaa wanb rana an naps'? -jban na^i

4 nana •aiai aisa "?a ana ]■•« na>K an^ sanaman pi natei
nay1? ana na nwn jn» va»i nyn yn naan baa anstyai

n ar *m -jban an1? jo^i : antra ptr^i naa dib^i *]ban torn 1T
oropoi tri^tr a^:t? obnabi rwa psi ^ban >a=naa rava ' y° •

6 towra man b*m rrons *ob ana \ti :-jban saab nay*

7 T^rraf n^aanbi ^strta^n b^an!? ats»i mat? a^anan ntr an1? d^m :n^ijn

sua nay nntybi ^0 taerefo

8 trpa^i rntwa pai *]ban aonaa bsarv »b tok iab by b»m nvn

g saab ffun^i nanb towi n« amban jm sbKarr xb i&h a^anan "itra
' naa ntrs T,ban uik n« '•aa «t bwa-ib a^anan *w natoi :a^anan ntr 15
■wh anb\n p a^ayt aa^aa n« hny no1? na>K aaTitra n«i aabaaa n«

11 it? nao ipk nsbsn •?« torei ibki sTb»b wi n« anajm aabp

12 lan*1! mtry a^ "pay n« «: aa smrjn bNt^a man towi by a^anan

13 anaan anb\n ntnai la^no raab ikyj jnntrai a^ai nba«ai a^yYn p iab

14 aari nrn naib an1? yaan s-pay &y ntry nsnn n^xai i^an >Sns n« 20
w an^n "?a )a n^a wnai aia an'«no n«n: m^j; a^a^ ra|?»i :nn^v a^

16 ]n':i an^ntra p d^4ib n« «^a nsban wi s^en ao^na n« a^asn

17 naam naa ^aa babni j;^a dt6kti an1? )na anj;an« n^«n an^m

18 as,a,,,i B«^an^ i^an ie« ijy« a^a\n n^abi snio^m pm ^aa pan bwn 25

19 ns:in Vs^-ia aVaa N^a: «^i -j^an an« nan^i jisanaaa ^as^ a^anan -ip
3 l^an ana a»pa n^N na^a naan ian bai s^an ^aa1? naj;^ nnryi ^^a
21 "?«^t m^i timaba "?aa np« a^aiy'«n<i> a^aainn b by nrr ntyj; n«ssa^

s^»n vrmb nn« nap iy

30

$&;
v

2,« inn ayanm niabn "i^inaa: a"?n n^anaaa niaba"? <rnfejj> a^n^ natrai

2 antra1?! a^a^aa1?! D^safK^i a^aann1? Nipb i^»n na*n si^j? nmna ma^i

3 '■nabn ai"?n ^an anb na«M {"pan •'aa^ naj?^ isa^i vnabn ^a1? Tanb

4 n'ais "jba1? antran raTi :annn n« nyn1? Tin aj?am

Dan.

««» Biet of £onfrt6ufor0 «s^

Genesis: C. J. Ball (London).

Exodus: Herbert E. Ryle (Cambridge).

Leviticus: S. R. Driver and H. A.White (Oxford).

Numbers: J. A. Paterson (Edinburgh).
5 Deuteronomy: Geo. A. Smith (Glasgow).

Joshua: W. H. Bennett (London).

Judges: Geo. F. Moore (Andover).

Samuel: K. Budde (Strassburg).

Kings: B. Stade (Giessen) and F. Schwally (Strassburg).
10 Isaiah: T. K. Cheyne (Oxford).

Jeremiah: C. H. Cornill (Konigsberg).

Ezekiel: C. H. Toy (Cambridge, Mass.).

Hosea: A. Socin (Leipzig).

Joel: Francis Brown (New York).
15 Amos: John Taylor (Winchcombe).

Obadiah: Andrew Harper (Melbourne, Australia).

Jonah: Friedrich Delitzsch (Breslau).

Micah: J. F. McCurdy (Toronto).

Nahum: Alfred Jeremias (Leipzig).
20 Habakkuk: W. H.Ward (New York).

Zephaniah: E. L. Curtis (New Haven).

Haggai: G. A. Cooke (Oxford).

Zechariah: W. R. Harper (Chicago).

Malachi: C. G. Montefiore and I. Abrahams (London).
25 Psalms : J.Wellhausen (Gottingen).

Proverbs: A. M tiller* and E. Kautzsch (Halle).

Job : C. Siegfried (Jena).

Song of Songs: Russell Martineau (London).

Ruth: C. A. Briggs (New York).
30 Lamentations: M. Jastrow, Jr. (Philadelphia).f

Ecclesiastes: Paul Haupt (Baltimore).

Esther: T. K. Abbott (Dublin).

Daniel: A. Kamphausen (Bonn).

Ezra-Nehemiah: H. Guthe (Leipzig).
35 Chronicles: R. Kittel (Breslau).

* Died September 12'h 1892.

f Professor Abraham Kuenen who had agreed to do the book
died December io* 1891.

H^l -P

1 — — 1

3 .& w9*

•H EEJ 3
CQ cd

University of Toronto

P4j

7?:

Library

CD!
-P
CD .

si a

DO NOT //

cd CD

//

-P CO

//

ca £

CD cd

REMOVE /

a,

1

T5 g \

H. td

o w

THE //

CD =aj

J

-P >»

CARD

io £

J3

1 1

«H

\\

O t-t
C\2 £}
"& CD

o .

CO CD

FROM \\

W J4 *

\\

1 O CD

THIS \

r-f T3 1 l_

^

rQ CD Q

POCKET X

33 O CO

VN-

cd H

1

CO .

i r-f J

h ^ > r

C Eh

■C 1>

— —

— ■!->

Acme Library Card Pocket

^ |

LOWE-MARTIN CO. Limited