Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Sergio,

> Artscroll-Mesorah, representing traditional Jewish interpretation, puts  
> Daniel 10:20-11:1 in the same one paragraph:
> "He said: Do you know why I came to you? Now I will return to do battle  with 
> the heavenly prince of Persia; then I will depart.  But behold -- the  
> heavenly prince of Greece approaches.  However, I will tell you what is  inscribed 
> in truthful writing.  No one reinforces me against these, except  your heavenly 
> prince, Michael; and I, in the first year of Darius the Mede,  stood up as a 
> support and stronghold for him."
>
> That the thoughts follow without a break, with Darius mentioned only  
> casually, strongly suggests that the referent "him" goes back to Michael.   Thus it 
> is understood by traditional Jewish commentators, with the exception of  
> Abarbanel.  Concerning the angel's standing up for "him," Artscroll-Mesorah  says: 
> "i.e., for Michael, the previously-mentioned heavenly prince of the Jews  
> (Rashi)."
>
> In a message dated 01/09/2006 4:00:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
> sesamox AT hotmail.com writes:
>
> So, this  commentary assumes that "him" is Darius. However, if we read the 
> preceding  verses, which were written without a break, we could also 
> understand that  "him" is "Michael", and the allusion to Darius is a mere 
> indication of the  year.
>
> Could you tell me some arguments for and against this  interpretation?
>  


HH: My reading of this commentary interprets it to suppose "Michael" is 
"him," not "Darius." That's what the following words indicate:

Concerning the angel's standing up for "him," Artscroll-Mesorah  says: 
"i.e., for Michael, the previously-mentioned heavenly prince of the Jews  
(Rashi)."



Yours,
Harold Holmyard




> Thanks
> Sergio
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> .
>
>