266 Charles C. Tonry, 



with especial frequency in the book of Daniel, for narrating, because 

 of the highly imaginative character of the narrative. The same is true 

 of the imperfect tense (see below). In the excitement of such narration, 

 the writer sees the events actually take place before him. It is mistaken 

 editing, for instance, when Strack (/. c.) and others alter x^li"? i" 5:7 to 

 X*lp, on the ground that the participle would not be used in this way 

 in ordinary Syriac or Hebrew narrative. 



c . 



3:29 n'^iT- Here, is one of the few cases where the alternative 

 reading preserved in the massoretic vowel-pointing gives us a word 

 which is altogether different, in origin and meaning, from that in the 

 consonant text. It is not easy to see why so many of our modern 

 interpreters should hesitate in regard to the word originally intended, 

 especially in view of 4 : 14 and i Sam. 1 : 17.* Besides, nouns meaning 

 " thing, matter," derived from verbs signifying " ask, seek, wish " are 



common in Semitic ; thus we have Arabic xJLLo, •^.jJJOjo, Syriac 



o^^, etc. 



3:31-4:34. I am unable to see any probable connection between 

 this account of Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation and the legend contained 

 in the fragment from Abydenus. The one point of interest in the latter 

 is the prediction, by the king, of the subjugation of his kingdom by 

 Cyras, '' the mule." The words in which he curses the Persian monarch 

 contain nothing unusual, nothing striking, nothing which would be likely 

 to remain in the memory of any one who had- read them. He does 

 not even carry out the figure of "the mule," as we might expect that 

 he would ; does not even hint, for instance, at the wish that Cyras 

 might be treated as a beast (to say nothing of his being transformed 

 into one !}. All that he wishes is, that the Persian might miss his way 

 to Babylon, and be led off into the trackless desert (a most natural 

 wish, and expressed in quite ordinary language). The resemblance to 

 the story of Nebuchadnezzar's experience — so far as it is permissible 

 to speak of any resemblance "* — is purely accidental. 



' Beyond any doubt, those who introduced the vowels of ^^^^ here knew 

 that the older reading before them was n'^ti^' ^^^* ^^ '"'^^ derived from 

 bx^' ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ meant " thing." It was a familiar noun, and they were 

 probably not in the habit of writing it with j^ (in 4 : 14 the j^ is required 

 by the rhythm). 



^ The points of contact, out of which our recent commentaries make so 

 much, are the following : (1) Nebuchadnezzar has a divine revelation. (But 

 this is the merest commonplace. All kings of whatever sort, have reve- 

 lations and see visions, in these popular histories.) (2) The king stands 

 on the roof of his palace. (Where else could he stand, for either of the 



