Attributed commentary excerpt
Keil & Delitzsch on Daniel 12:8
A historical reference excerpt for this verse. Read it alongside the biblical text and other available sources.
Commentary on the Old Testament
C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch · 19th-century historical commentary
Source: BibleWord.ai's local reference edition of this named work.
Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי, as to אבין לא, the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium. Hvernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Dan 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Dan 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the "times," and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place. (Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur.) Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure. The question, "what the end of these?" is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Dan 12:7; for since "this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless." Besides, the answer, Dan 12:11, Dan 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, "The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people." But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה, this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Dan 12:7, Dan 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל. If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? T…
This public page shows a contextual excerpt from the locally available source text.
How to use this source
This excerpt is attributed to its named commentary. It is included as a historical study resource and should be evaluated in light of Scripture and other relevant evidence.
