Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel. 259 



things ; and like the iron (implement) which shattereth, it shall break 

 and shatter all these." r'^j^ ^^ refers of course to the other kingdoms. 

 This is the text which lay before the old Greek translator (though he 

 seems to have made the last word, i^iril' contain some form of i?^i<. 

 " earth "). The text rendered by Theodotion (followed by Marti, 

 Comm., Kittel, Biblia Hebraica) and the Vulgate is later and inferior. 



2:41 J^3^5p 5lpn- The second word of this compound describes the 

 kind of " clay," of which there were doubtless several well known varieties. 

 As I have shown in the introduction, the author represented by the " iron " 

 of the toes the victorious power of Egypt, which under Ptolemy EI 

 Euergetes was showing some of the portentous strength (xri22i3 Tp) of 

 Alexander's own kingdom, and was just then shattering and crushing 

 what seemed to be the last remnants of the Seleucid " clay," in 

 Northern Syria. In all probability, the word X3^^ vvas intended to 

 designate an inferior, "miry" sort of clay, and the writer thus][ ex- 

 pressed his low opinion of the weak and crumbling West-Asiatic king- 

 dom, whose utter annihilation he may well have expected to see. So 

 the old Greek translator, whose interpretation is always likely to be 

 valuable because of its age, renders Sfxa roi inf)Xiv(o os-paxtp.^ 



2 : 42, 43. As has already been remarked, the style of this writer 

 is somewhat repetitious. In these verses 41—43, however, the reason 

 for the reiteration is very obvious. Ever\'' detail here must be given 

 extraordinary emphasis, for this is the all-important point where the 

 prediction reaches events of the writer's own day (cf. the corresponding 

 verses, 23—25, in chap. 7).' 



2 : 45. Here, again, the massoretes have divided the verses incor- 

 rectly. All the first part of " vs. 45," as far as X2n*11) belongs to vs. 44. 

 The rest, from hSk on, ought to have been set apart as distinctly as 

 possible. 



2 : 48 ^^53 n3^*7X2) '' the province of Babylonia." It is an interesting 

 question, at what time the prevailing use of the word rf3^*lD passed over 

 from the signification of " province, district " to that of " city." In the 

 Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra, and also in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, 

 including Esther, Koheleth, and Dan. 8—12, the word seems to mean 



' Theodotion (or, more probably, the man who had edited the text which 

 Theodotion rendered) did not understand the phi-ase, and left out the word 

 j^jnjj. Hence De Goeje, Marti, Kittel's Biblia IJebraica, and others, would 

 omit the word, both here and in vs. 43. (They do not seem to have no- 

 ticed that they would then further be obliged to change PlpHS ^° J^SDHDi 

 in both verses.) 



' According to Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, vss. 42 and 43 are " probably a 

 later addition "! 



17* 



