Daniel 2:10

The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, astrologer, or Chaldean. It is to be noted, in the first place, that we have the same Syriac form of כַּשְׂדָיֵא . This seems to us a survival from an earlier condition of the text, when the Syriac forms were predominant, if not universal, in it. Scribes accustomed to speak and write in Chaldee would naturally harmonize the text to the language they were accustomed to use. The word "saying" ("and said," Authorized Version) is omitted from the. Septuagint, but it is found in all other versions: its omission in the Septuagint may have been due to error—the Aramaic is not complete without it. לָא־אִתַי ( la- 'itha ), "there is not." The ordinary Targumic and Talmudic usage is לַיִת ( layith ), "is not." one word. This full way of writing this negative form is an undeniable proof of antiquity. Neither Levy nor Castell gives any example of the full writing which is the regular practice in Biblical Aramaic. Merx, 'Chrestomath. Targ.,' 168, 225, also gives only לית . As a rule, the fuller a form is, the older it is. Earth; literally, dry ground— the same word as is used in the Targum of Genesis, "Let the dry land appear," but not the usual word for "the world." Theodotion, in accordance, translates ξηρᾶς ; the LXX . renders merely, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς . The Peshitta has (see word, ar ' a ). The king ' s matter ( mil-lath malea ); literally, the king ' s word , which, consequently, Theodotion translates ῥῆμα . The LXX renders, "to tell the king that which he has seen." It is evident that he read millath , as it' derived from melal , "to speak," as lemallala. The rendering, "that which he has seen," is due to reading ל ( l) into ד ( d ); the verb ḥeva was read heza , and then the change in meaning be. conies intelligible. Therefore there is no king , lord , nor ruler. The mote natural interpretation of the Aramaic is, "There is no king great and powerful." Some have regarded rab ushlāṭ as a title of the King of Babylon, hut this does not seem to be borne out by inscriptions. The sense is rather that of the marginal rendering, "There is no king be he never so great and powerful." Theodotion has this reading. The Septuagint renders, " no king and no ruler ( πᾶς βασιλεὺς καὶ πᾶς δυνάστης … οὐκ )," reading כול ( cōl ) for רב ( rab ) . The Peshitta follows the Massoretic closely here. In this connection, it may be observed, שליט ( shaleeṭ ) is not frequent in the Targums, but it occurs in the Peshitta. That asked such things. Kidnah , "like this." This form of the demonstration, ending with ה ( h ), instead of , א is regarded as older than the Targumic form. Theodotion inserts ῥῆμα here. At any magician , or astrologer , or Chaldean. The first thing that strikes the reader of the Aramaic, and for that matter the other versions, is the omission of one of the classes of soothsayers—that called "sorcerers" in our Authorized Version. We saw that, according to the Septuagint, the" Chaldeans" were not a separate college of augurs or soothsayers. When we look atlentively at the Aramaic, the reason of the presence of "Chaldeans" here, and the absence of "sorcerers" becomes probable. In the first place, כשדיא is written without the , א as singular. When so written, its resemblance to מְכַשֵׁף ( mekashshāph ) suggests the question whether there might not be, occupying this place, an Aramaic noun equivalent to ashshaph , which we see is really Assyrian, and, interpreting it we find mekashshāph put thus after ashshaph elsewhere, but omitted here. The solution of' the omission of mekashshāph is the likeness the latter part of the word bears to Kusdt , especially in the script of Egypt, in which כ and א were very like each other. These assembled wise men protest against the test to which the king would put them as essentially unfair. They had been trained to divine the future from dreams, but never to find out dreams by what they had learned from their airs the future would be; and in proof of this they urge that no king, however great, had made such a demand of any astrologer or soothsayer. Nay, they go further, and say that no man upon the earth is able to tell the king what he wishes. They endeavour to make the king see that what he asks is an impossibility.