Verse 13. - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the ohief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. The rendering of the LXX. is, And the general (στρατηγὸς) of the King of the Persians withstood me one and twenty days, and behold Michael, one of the first princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the general of the King of the Persians. The sense of Theedotion is nearly the same as the LXX., only he has βασιλείας Περσῶν instead of βασιλέως. Like the LXX., Thee-dotion declares that Michael was left with the Prince of Persia. The Peshitta agrees more with the Massoretic, but, like the LXX. and Theedotion, it is with the Prince of Persia that there is some one remaining. The Peshitta here, in opposition to the Greek versions, has the statement that Gabriel remained, not Michael. The Vulgate agrees still further with the Massoretic, only instead of the plural kings, it has king. The most important differences are in the last clause, where the LXX. and Theodotion must have had the hiphil of יָתִר where the Massoretic has the niphal. Gratz adopts this reading, which certainly has the advantage of making sense of an otherwise unintelligible passage. Professor Bevan, in his easy way, suggests this to be probably a mere guess, the insertion of αὐτὸν, and the substitution of a transitive for an intransitive verb are quite in the manner of the LXX. translators. He forgets that Theodotion also has this variation, and also that, without any justification from the versions, he himself has suggested various readings. He does not observe that this interpretation affords a reason for Gabriels presence with Daniel. Michael relieved him in his opposition to the Prince of Persia. The other variant, prince instead of king, has the support of all the versions. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days. That is to say, during the whole of Daniels fast. The angelology of later Judaism is a very complicated, not to say confused, subject. The angelology of one age is not that of another; and the angelology of the Jews in one country is not that of the Jews in another. The Jews themselves understood that the Babylonian captivity did a great deal to develop the doctrine of the angels; the Jewish tradition was that they brought back from Babylon the names of the angels. Not only had their residence in Babylon defined the Jewish ideas as to the names f the angels, they began to have clearer ideas of their functions. They reached the idea that every race had its guardian angel. This view is expressed in Deuteronomy 32:8, according to the Septuagint, He set bounds for the nations according to the number of the angels of God. To a similar purport is Ecclus. 17:17, To each of the nations he appointed a leader, and Israel is the portion of the Lord. There seems, however, a preparation for this in Isaiah 24:21 (comp. also Psalm 29:1; Psalm 106:9). As independent of revelation there is a strong inherent probability that there are races of beings of intelligence and might vastly superior to man, there is nothing inherently improbable in these intelligences being employed by the Almighty in furthering his providential scheme. Men are instruments of God; is it not at least not improbable that, if there are angels, they, too, co-operate with God in the working out of his great purpose? That every nation should have an angelic prince over it is not more extraordinary than that every Church should have a special angel over it (Revelation 1:20; Revelation 2:2, etc.). That there should be conflicts between these angelic princes is simply to say they are finite. Hitzigs reference to Revelation 12:7 is not to the point, for there is no indication of warlike opposition here. By the indications here, we might judge that the opposition of the Prince of Persia was to the coming of Gabriel to reveal to Daniel the purpose of God. We know nothing of the means employed in the opposition, or of the reason of it. Keil and Kliefoth have the idea that Gabriel was striving to influence the King of Persia, but was hindered in his efforts by the Prince of Persia; this is scarcely berne out by the context. But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me. Michael (Who is like God?) is, in the twenty-first verse, declared to be the prince of the Jewish people, therefore equivalent to the captain of the host of the Lord (Joshua 5:14). He is referred to in Revelation 12:7 and Jude 1:9. Where he is called one of the chief princes, there is reference to an angelic hierarchy, whether the same as that we find developed in the Book of Enoch or not cannot be decided certainly. In the Book of Tobit 12:15 Raphael declares himself one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints, and who go in and out before the glory of the Holy One. The Book of Tobit seems to have been written about B.C. 400; hence this is an indication of opinion before the Books of Enoch. In the Enoch books not only are the great angels mentioned, but their names arc given, and functions are assigned to them; but they are numbered as four, not seven. Enoch is posterior to Tobit, and finds a place for Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel. We have no means of testing whether the number of the chief angelic princes, of whom Michael was one, was four or seven, according to the opinion of Daniel. From the fact that Enoch is, so to speak, in the direct line of apocalyptic descent from Daniel, and Tobit is not, and, moreover, as the angelology of Tobit is in close connection with the Persian hierarchy of am-haspentas, of which there were seven, - we may regard four as the more genuinely Jewish number. The later Jewish angel-elegy has many Persian elements, as shown by Dr. Kohut, in his Angelologie und Demonologie. Whether the number of the archangels be made four or seven, both Gabriel and Michael are of the number, whereas Gabriels words would rather indicate that, though Michael belonged to the rank of chief prince, he did not. As we cannot tell the nature of the opposition, we cannot tell the nature of the help afforded. And I remained there with the kings of Persia. It is very difficult to interpret this if we retain the Massoretic reading. In the first place, the sense given to nothartee in the Authorized and Revised is unsuitable. The angel is explaining how, after having delayed three whole weeks, he has now come. The sentence, as interpreted above,would have explained why he could not come at all to Daniel. It is attempted to get over this by explaining that Gabriel had beaten off the Prince of Persia, and that Michael remained with the King of Persia instead of him. This view, however, contradicts the function assigned to angels of nations, and implies a quasi-omnipresence on the part of Gabriel, and would render his explanation no explanation. The explanation of Gesenius, Havernick, and yon Lengerke, that nothartee is to be taken as meaning I received the pre-eminence, as Wirier, superior discessi apud reges Persarum, has no justification in usage. Gescnius would bring in the Syriac use of the hithpael of this verb, but though both Castell and Brockehuann assign meanings suitable, none of their quotations represents a sense precisely similar to that assigned to the verb here Hitzigs interpretation, I was delayed, fails to explain his coming. Ewalds explanation, I was superfluous, is logical, but has no grammatical justification. Professor Bevans explanation, which would take this last clause as parenthetical, is untenable, as it supplies no redden for the presence of Gabriel with Daniel. We must follow the LXX. and Theodotion in reading, either as Meinhold and Behrmann, וְהותַרְתִּין or better, as Gratz, אִתּו הֹותַרְתִּי, as the vav in the former ease would naturally be read conversively. Besides, Gratzs reading explains the needlessly emphatic אֲנִי. Further, it seems needful to accept the reading of the two Greek versions and the Peshitta, and instead of מַלְכֵי read שד. None of the old versions support the Massoretic; the Vulgate is the nearest; and all of them have either read מֶלֶך or regarded מלכי as a form of the construct state, and so vocalized differently. Further, the later context here implies the contiuance of the conflict or controversy (vers. 20, 21). We must understand, then, that Gabriel left Michael to maintain the conflict against the angelic Prince of Persia, while he came in obedience to Daniels prayer. We can have but little idea of what is meant by this conflict in the heavenlies between angelic beings.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:11:09 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015