SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 146 | Next

Daubney, William Heaford

"The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study"

3 ?????, ??. The use of ???±?„?¬ after ???????¬?????‰, instead of a double
accusative, suggests a translation of ?????“ followed by a ?‘ or ????, with
either of which it is sometimes constructed.
v. 5 ?????, ??. If Aramaic be the original language, ????????????…?? may well
represent ?¦?°?‘????, as in IV. 14, V. 23 and elsewhere.
v. 6 ?????, ??. Scholz deems ?????????µ???‚ and ?????????????µ?????? to be based on a
confusion between ???©?¤???™?? and ? ?©?¤???™??.
vv. 7, 15, 19, 28 ??. ???±??¶ ??????­???µ?„?? is suggestive of ?•?™?”?™.
vv. 8, 14, 56 ?????, ??. The use of ??????????…?????± in a bad sense, and of ??????????…???­?‰
in a perfectly innocent one in v. 15 ??, seems careless, and may point to
translation from an original, where different roots were used, _e.g._
???”?‘,?—???“,???•?”. _Cf._ LXX of Deut. v. 21 (18) for a rendering of two
different Hebrew roots by the same word, ??????????…???­?‰, though in that case
they are both employed in a bad sense.
v. 15 ??. ???±??????‚ ????‡??????‚ ???±??¶ ?„?????„?·?‚ ??????­???‚ looks like ?›???????°???•?„?? ?©???????°?©??????, as
in Gen.


Pages:
134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158