« AnteriorContinuar »
People, while the Imperial Name appeared in publick Acts, or was used at Home only: whoev.er considers this, I fay, will cease his Wonder, when, amidst such a variety of Appellations for one and the fame Person, he finds this Historian making use of one, and that of another, according as his Fancy, his Pronunciation, or the Custom of the Country, where he liv'd, leads him.
Daniel, in all Probability, calls the lame Person Darius Medus, whom the Greek Historians call Cyaxares 11; but, when it is observed, that these Historians agree with5 Daniel as to the main Points of his Narration, viz. sThat Babylon was taken by an Army ofMedes and (Persians, whereof the Medes, being the superior, were at that time, named first; that Cyaxares, King of Media, assisted at the Siege, and was treated by Cyrus as his Chief; that the City, in the Night-time, was surprized by Cyrus, after a Day of Riot and Revelling, by diverting the Course of the River Euphrates ', that Cyaxares, being old and naturally unactive, chose to live at Ecbatana, the Capital of Media, while Cyrus attended the Affairs of the Government of Babylon; and that Cyras, upon his Death, succeeded to the whole I a Empire:
Vid. Xcnop. Lib. 5. & 8. Sc Herod. Lib. 1.
Empire: If we observe, I say, the exact Agreement between these Histori\ ans, as to the chief Matters of Fact, we may easily dispense with some small difference in Point of Names.; especially considering, that the Authors lived at no left a distance than Babylon is from Greece, and that the Greeks consequently might make use of the Name, which he went by in Media, as best known to them, which the Babylonians, after he had taken their City, changed into Darius Medus, or the Victorious Mede, and which Daniel, being Captive in the Place, might in Conformity call him. o• trms It may happen indeed, that there is of Art de- now an(^ then a "Word or two in the
fiomrhe Book of Daniel, which may seem to Greek. have some Analogy to the Greek. Tongue, and, with some little Variation, may be derived from it; but then it is to be observed, that (besides the Precariousness of an Argument taken from the Etymology of Words, which is very often a pure Matter of fancy) the Words, that are produced of this kind, are, for the most part, technical Terms; such as might flip into any Language, without being perceived, and such as a Writer might properly enough use, without understanding any more of the Tongue,
from from whence they are borrowed. 'Architects and Mechanicks, we know, use to this Day several Greek and Arabick Terms of Art in their respective Professions, and yet they do not pretend to understand the Language from whence they came; and why might not Daniel, ipeaking in Terms (as he certainly does, when he Names the musical Instruments, very probably of Grecian make, which were used at the Consecration of Nebuchadnezzar's Golden Image) why might not he, I say, make use of Words of a foreign Extract, and, at the lame time, be iuppofed a Stranger to the other Parts of that Language. This, I think, is the common Privilege of most Writers. Nor is the Mixture of some such Greek Terms in the Caldee Language 16 difficult a Matter to account for, if we will but allow, what Grotius observes, viz. " That, before Daniels Age, ma"ny Colonies both of the Ionians and u ÆolianSy having settled themselves in <c J/ia Minor, (which lies contiguous to li some Provinces of the great Eajlern u Kingdoms,) might, that way, coma municate the Names of what they in"vented or improved, even as far as * Babylon it self. .
His be-. The Translation of the Septuagint wilt d\n Interpreters has been held in such iheVsrsi Esteem, that, to have any part of on of the Scripture omitted in it, would give a just Suspicion, as if it had not been extant, or not known, at the time when those learned Men undertook the Work: but this is lb far from being true in the Cafe of Daniel, that we find the Seventy's Version of him read publickly in our Saviour's time; that we find v Juftin Martyr and w Clemens Romanus, who • both wrote before Theodotion's. Version was made, citing Passages out of it; that we find St. Jerome giving us several various Readings, different from those in Thcodvt'ion, ibmetimes from those of Afuila and Symmacus out of it, and, at the fame time, telling us, that this Translation of Vaniei was repudiated, and that of ctheodotion, substituted in its room, by the Doctors of the Church. It was Origen indeed, who first brought it into discredit, by his comparing it with that of Theodotion from the Original, in his Hexapla^ which shew'd its Imperfections a little too plainly: but then its Degradation proves,that before this happened to it, it was us'd in the Christian
Church Church all along, and held to be as Canonical, as any other Books of Scripture.
v t>ial. cum Triph. Ed. Ox. p. 87. 'Ad Corinth. En. 1.
The Omission of Daniel's Name ininthec.rthe Enumeration of the Prophets, which "'<"«f of we meet with x in Ecclejiajlicus, is of no fn^"s great Moment, because we find no men- ajikus, tion made of Ezra, as well as him : and tho'much maybe laid, * as to the Imperfection of that Book/ the probable loss of some part of it in Egypt, or the Boldneis or Negligence of the Transcribers; yet, since the rest of the Books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, which was the common Language of 'Judea, and that, wherein Jejus the Father of Sirach wrote, and a great part both of the Books of Ezra and Daniel was written in Caldee, which was a Tongue not so well known in Judea; •f the Author's Ignorance of that Tongue was the true Occasion, as I take it, of the Omission of these two, and only of these two famous Writers, in that Catalogue of the Prophets.
There are sundry Reasons likewise And the to be given, why we have no Caldee *"*"' f Paraphrase upon Daniel, as well as the yZatbau. reft of the Prophets: For, besides that I 4 a good
* Jer. on Dan. iv. 8. Chap. xlrx. * Vid. Prologue to Ecckjiajlicus. r Vid. Prol. to Ecclejiajlicus. t Wliijlons lite/al Accomplishment.