4<\/strong>. in Syriack<\/em> ] in<\/em> Aramaic<\/strong>, i.e. the language of the Aramaeans, an important branch of the Semitic stock, inhabiting chiefly Mesopotamia, Syria, and part of Arabia. There were numerous ‘Aramaic’ dialects as the Aramaic spoken in Assyria, at Zinjirli (near Aleppo), in Palmyra, in Tma, by the Nabataeans at ’el‘la, that of the books of Daniel and Ezra, that of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, that of the Babylonian, that of the Palestinian Talmud which, while similar in their general features, differed in details, somewhat in the manner in which the Greek dialects differed from one another: but the language which is now known distinctively as ‘Syriac,’ i.e. the language in which the ‘Peshit’ version of the Bible (2nd cent. a.d.) was made, and in which an extensive Christian literature exists, differs markedly from the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra: and hence the rendering ‘Syriack’ suggests an entirely false idea of the language here meant. R.V., ‘in the Syrian language’ (cf. Isa 36:11<\/span>) is some improvement; but the term which ought to be employed is ‘Aramaic.’<\/p>\n The Aramaic part of the book begins with the words O king<\/em>; and if ‘(in) Aramaic’ forms an integral part of the sentence, the author, it seems, must mean to indicate that in his opinion Aramaic was used at the court for communications of an official nature. That, however, does not explain why the use of Aramaic continues to the end of ch. 7; and it is besides quite certain that Aramaic, such as that of the Book of Daniel, was not<\/em> spoken in Babylon. Very probably Oppert, Lenormant, Nestle, and others are right in regarding ‘Aramaic’ as originally a marginal note, indicating that that language begins to be used here; in this case the word will in English be naturally enclosed in brackets, ‘And they spake to the king, [ Aramaic<\/em> ] O king, &c’ The second ‘(in) Aramaic’ in Ezr 4:7<\/span> is probably to be explained similarly (‘was written in Aramaic, and interpreted. [ Aramaic<\/em> ]’).<\/p>\n O king, live for ever<\/em> ] The standing formula, with which, in Dan., the king is addressed (Dan 3:9<\/span>, Dan 5:10<\/span>, Dan 6:6<\/span>; Dan 6:21<\/span>); elsewhere (in the 3rd person) only on somewhat exceptional occasions, 1Ki 1:31<\/span>; Neh 2:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n we will shew<\/em> ] declare<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Then spake the Chaldeans to the king – <\/B>The meaning is, either that the Chaldeans spoke in the name of the entire company of the soothsayers and magicians (see the notes, Dan 1:20<\/span>; Dan 2:2<\/span>), because they were the most prominent among them, or the name is used to denote the collective body of soothsayers, meaning that this request was made by the entire company.<\/P> In Syriac – <\/B>In the original – <\/span> ‘aramyt<\/I> – in Aramean. Greek, <\/SPAN><\/span> Suristi<\/I> – in Syriac. So the Vulgate. The Syriac retains the original word. The word means Aramean, and the reference is to that language which is known as East Aramean – a general term embracing the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the languages which were spoken in Mesopotamia. See the notes at Dan 1:4<\/span>. This was the vernacular tongue of the king and of his subjects, and was that in which the Chaldeans would naturally address him. It is referred to here by the author of this book, perhaps to explain the reason why he himself makes use of this language in explaining the dream. The use of this, however, is not confined to the statement of what the magicians said, but is continued to the close of the seventh chapter. Compare the Intro. Section IV. III. The language used is what is commonly called Chaldee. It is written in the same character as the Hebrew, and differs from that as one dialect differs from another. It was, doubtless, well understood by the Jews in their captivity, and was probably spoken by them after their return to their own land.<\/P> O king, live for ever – <\/B>This is a form of speech quite common in addressing monarchs. See 1Sa 10:24<\/span>; 1Ki 1:25<\/span> (margin); Dan 3:9<\/span>; Dan 5:10<\/span>. The expression is prevalent still, as in the phrases, Long live the king, Vive l empereur, Vive le roi<\/I>, etc. It is founded on the idea that long life is to be regarded as a blessing, and that we can in no way express our good wishes for anyone better than to wish him length of days. In this place, it was merely the usual expression of respect and homage, showing their earnest wish for the welfare of the monarch. They were willing to do anything to promote his happiness, and the continuance of his life and reign. It was especially proper for them to use this language, as they wore about to make a rather unusual request, which might be construed as an act of disrespect, implying that the king had not given them all the means which it was equitable for them to have in explaining the matter, by requiring them to interpret the dream when he had not told them what it was.<\/P> Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation – <\/B>The claim which they set up in regard to the future was evidently only that of explaining what were regarded as the prognostics of future events. It was not that of being able to recal what is forgotten, or even to originate what might be regarded preintimations of what is to happen. This was substantially the claim which was asserted by all the astrologers, augurs, and soothsayers of ancient times. Dreams, the flight of birds, the aspect of the entrails of animals slain for sacrifice, the positions of the stars, meteors, and uncommon appearances in the heavens, were supposed to be intimations made by the gods of what was to occur in future times, and the business of those who claimed the power of divining the future was merely to interpret these things. When the king, therefore, required that they should recal the dream itself to his own mind, it was a claim to something which was not involved in their profession, and which they regarded as unjust. To that power they made no pretensions. If it be asked why, as they were mere jugglers and pretenders, they did not invent something and state that as his dream, since he had forgotten what his dream actually was, we may reply,<\/P> (1) that there is no certain evidence that they were not sincere in what they professed themselves able to do – for we are not to suppose that all who claimed to be soothsayers and astrologers were hypocrites and intentional deceivers. It was not at that period of the world certainly determined that nothing could be ascertained respecting the future by dreams, and by the positions of the stars, etc. Dreams were among the methods by which the future was made known; and whether the knowledge of what is to come could be obtained from the positions of the stars, etc., was a question which was at that time unsettled Even Lord Bacon maintained that the science of astrology was not to be rejected, but to be reformed.<\/P> (2) If the astrologers had been disposed to attempt to deceive the king, there is no probability that they could have succeeded in palming an invention of their own on him as his own dream. We may not be able distinctly to recollect a dream, but we have a sufficient impression of it – of its outlines – or of some striking, though disconnected, things in it, to know what it is not. We might instantly recognize it if stated to us; we should see at once, if anyone should attempt to deceive us by palming an invented dream on us, that that was not what we had dreamed.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac<\/B><\/I>] aramith<\/I>, the language of Aram<\/I> or Syria<\/I>. What has been generally called the Chaldee.<\/P> <\/P> O king, live for ever<\/B><\/I>] Malca leolmin cheyi<\/I>. With these words the Chaldee<\/I> part of Daniel commences; and continues to the end of the seventh<\/I> chapter. These kinds of compliments are still in use in the East Indies. A superior gives a blessing to an inferior by saying to him, when the latter is in the act of doing him reverence, “Long life to thee<\/I>.” A poor man, going into the presence of a king to solicit a favour, uses the same kind of address: O father, thou art the support of the destitute; mayest thou live to old age<\/I>! – WARD’S Customs<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n In Syriac; that is, in the Chaldee tongue, for Syria or Aram is taken in a large sense sometimes, containing Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Palestine, 2Ki 18:26<\/span>, and from hence to the 8th chapter all is written in the Chaldee language, and not Hebrew, because it most concerned that people, and from thence in Hebrew again. <\/P> O king, live for ever: this was a salutation to princes of old, 1Sa 10:24<\/span>; 1Ki 1:25<\/span>; their meaning was, Let him live a long happy life, for thus the word live is often taken, Psa 34:12<\/span>, and this is agreeable to the desires of all worldly men in their prosperity. <\/P> We will show the interpretation: it is observed of old to this day, that there is not any sort of men who are such flatterers as impostors. So confident and arrogant are these fortune-tellers, that they promise to interpret a dream which they never knew: this was boldly said of them, seeing the Egyptian magicians could not interpret Pharaohs dream though he told it them, Gen 41:8<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4.<\/B> Here begins the Chaldee<\/I>portion of Daniel, which continues to the end of the seventh chapter.In it the course, character, and crisis of the Gentile power aretreated; whereas, in the other parts, which are in Hebrew,<\/I> thethings treated apply more particularly to the Jews and Jerusalem. <\/P> Syriac<\/B>the ArameanChaldee,<\/I> the vernacular tongue of the king and his court; theprophet, by mentioning it here, hints at the reason of his ownadoption of it from this point. <\/P> live for ever<\/B>a formulain addressing kings, like our “Long live the king!” Compare1Ki 1:31<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in, Syriac<\/strong>,…. These spake, either because the interpretation of dreams particularly belonged to them; or else as being the chief of the wise men, and of greatest authority; or as chosen by the rest, and spake in their name; and indeed this appellation may include them all, being all of the same country, though they might differ in their profession: they spake in the Syriac or Babylonish language, the same with the Chaldee, being their mother tongue, and that of the king too; and therefore could more easily speak it themselves, and be more easily understood by him, than if they had spoke in another; [See comments on Da 1:4]<\/span> and from hence, to the end of the “seventh” chapter, Daniel writes in Chaldee; the things he treats of chiefly relating to the Chaldeans:<\/p>\n O king, live for ever<\/strong>; which is a wish of long life, health, and prosperity; and does not intend an everlasting continuance in this world, or an eternal life in another, to the knowledge of which they might be strangers: this was an usual form of salutation of kings in these eastern nations; like to this is that of Sinaetus, a Persian, to Artaxerxes Mnemon x<\/p>\n “O King Artaxerxes, reign for ever;”<\/p>\n so said y Artabazus, a faithful friend of Darius, to Alexander the great, when he met him with the friends and relations of Darius,<\/p>\n “O king, may you flourish in perpetual happiness:”<\/p>\n tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation<\/strong>; this was not the thing that was asked of them, but the dream itself; and if that had been told them, they promise more than there is reason to believe they would have fulfilled, had that been done; it is more than the Egyptian magicians could do, even when Pharaoh had told them his dream: this they said partly to get time, and partly to make a show of their skill and knowledge; though in a very vain and arrogant manner.<\/p>\n x Aelian. Var. Hist. l. 1. c. 32. y Curtius, l. 6. c. 5.<\/p>\n (4) In Syriack.<\/strong>Probably a fresh title, indicating to the copyist that the Chaldee portion of the book begins here. It has been conjectured that this portion of the book (Dan. 2:4-7<\/span>) is a Chaldee translation of an original Hebrew work, but there is no authority for the conjecture. God is about to reveal facts connected with the Gentile world, and therefore a Gentile language is used as the vehicle of the revelation. (See 1Ti. 2:3-4<\/span>; Mat. 2:1-2<\/span>).<\/p>\n Live for ever.<\/strong>For this common form of salutation, comp. Dan. 3:9<\/span>; Dan. 5:10<\/span>, &c.<\/p>\n 4<\/strong>. <\/strong> In Syriac <\/strong> This does not show that the writer of Daniel thought the Chaldeans spake Syriac or Aramaic. It is more probably a late marginal note, stating that at this point the Aramaic section of the book began.<\/p>\n Dan 2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.<\/p>\n Ver. 4. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac,<\/strong> ] i.e., <\/em> In Chaldee, whence there is here no Chaldee paraphrase; or else, if the Syriac were then a distinct tongue from the Chaldee, as now it is, it was belike their learned language, as now the Arabic is among the Turks. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n O king, live for ever.<\/strong> ] In this most officious salutation they flatter him, say some, or aver the immortality of the soul, as others, or wish him a long life, as also Daniel doth afterwards. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And we will show the interpretation.<\/strong> ] Impostors are great braggers; but as the peacock in setting up his tail showeth his posteriors, so do these get to themselves shame.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 2:4-11<\/p>\n 4Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic: O king, live forever! Tell the dream to your servants, and we will declare the interpretation. 5The king replied to the Chaldeans, The command from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be torn limb from limb and your houses will be made a rubbish heap. 6But if you declare the dream and its interpretation, you will receive from me gifts and a reward and great honor; therefore declare to me the dream and its interpretation. 7They answered a second time and said, Let the king tell the dream to his servants, and we will declare the interpretation. 8The king replied, I know for certain that you are bargaining for time, inasmuch as you have seen that the command from me is firm, 9that if you do not make the dream known to me, there is only one decree for you. For you have agreed together to speak lying and corrupt words before me until the situation is changed; therefore tell me the dream, that I may know that you can declare to me its interpretation. 10The Chaldeans answered the king and said, There is not a man on earth who could declare the matter for the king, inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked anything like this of any magician, conjurer or Chaldean. 11Moreover, the thing which the king demands is difficult, and there is no one else who could declare it to the king except gods, whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh.<\/p>\n Dan 2:4-6 It may be that Nebuchadnezzar was going to test the interpretation of his wise men by also demanding that they reveal the contents of his dream first.<\/p>\n Dan 2:4 in Aramaic At this point the text of Daniel changes from Hebrew to Aramaic and will continue through chapter 7. Aramaic was the governmental and commercial language from the Assyrian to the Persian Empires. At this point in the text Daniel begins to quote Nebuchadnezzar’s fearful command of judgment on the Chaldean wise men. Therefore, a change to Aramaic fits.<\/p>\n The problem is why it continues through chapter seven. H. C. Leupold even makes chapter 7 a part of the literary unit starting in chapter one. The truth is no one knows why Hebrew starts, Aramaic continues, and Hebrew concludes the book of Daniel. Some compare the structural pattern of Job (prose, poetry, prose) or Hammurabi’s law code following the same pattern, but these are not in two languages, rather writing styles. Aramaic is a cognate Semitic language to Hebrew. Both are written in the same characters. It was known early in the Bible by its use in Gen 31:47 (two words) and it appears as the language of diplomatic dialogue in 2Ki 18:26. Imperial Aramaic was used from 600 to 330 B.C.<\/p>\n For a good discussion of the ancient use of Aramaic see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 201-210,1125.<\/p>\n O king, live forever This was a common honorific idiom for addressing Near Eastern potentates, (cf. Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:21; 1Ki 1:31; Neh 2:3).<\/p>\n Dan 2:5<\/p>\n NASBThe command from me is firm<\/p>\n KJVThe thing is gone from me<\/p>\n NKJVMy decision is firm<\/p>\n NRSVThis is a public decree<\/p>\n TEVI have made up my mind<\/p>\n NJBThis is my firm resolve<\/p>\n Nebuchadnezzar had fully made up his mind about this issue and made his decision public.<\/p>\n The KJV translation often is based on (1) a textual change in the Aramaic or (2) an opinion from Josephus (cf. Antiq. 10.10.3).<\/p>\n torn limb from limb This was a common method of capital punishment in the ancient Near East. Whether they were cut (1) with a knife; (2) torn by means of bended trees; or (3) being tied between two or more animals is uncertain.<\/p>\n NASByour houses shall be made a rubbish heap <\/p>\n NKJVand your houses shall be made an ash heap<\/p>\n NRSVand your houses shall be laid in ruins<\/p>\n TEVand make your houses a pile of ruins<\/p>\n NJBand your houses turned into dunghills<\/p>\n Some translations follow the rabbinical interpretation of the Targums, making this dung-hill, (NJB, cf. 2Ki 10:27). The reducing of criminals’ homes and possessions to rubbish (cf. Ezr 6:11) was a common practice in the empires of the Fertile Crescent. To further humiliate these people, these rubbish heaps were often turned into public latrines (developed metaphorical usage from the Targums).<\/p>\n Dan 2:9 This verse implies that Nebuchadnezzar did not trust his own wise men. This may be because (1) their interpretation had been false in the past or (2) he saw true insight by means of the four Jewish youths (cf. Dan 1:19-20, but this seems unlikely because of Dan 2:13 b). Whatever the reason this king is about to completely eliminate the entire group of wise men through violent means (cf. Dan 2:12-13).<\/p>\n Dan 2:10 Chaldeans answered There is a series of three alibis: (1) no man on earth can do this; (2) no king has ever asked this of the wise men before; and (3) only the gods can answer this question (cf. Dan 2:11). This heightens the significance of Daniel’s interpretation.<\/p>\n Dan 2:11 difficult This Hebrew term (BDB 1096) normally means precious, costly, valued. It can mean rare (cf. KJV and marginal note in NASB).<\/p>\n However, in this text it has an unusual idiomatic meaning. The word can have a royal or kingly connotation which fits this context, but difficult is a most unusual translation. The Bible: An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed, has hard thing, while The Living Bible by Taylor, has an impossible thing.<\/p>\n flesh This term (BDB 1088) is a metaphor for the transitoriness and frailty of human beings. Here it does not denote sinfulness, but weakness.<\/p>\n in Syriack. Hebrew. ‘aramith = Aramaic. The insertion of this word here is to call our attention to the fact that what follows is written not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic, as far as the end of Dan 7. See note on the Structure, p. 1178; and note the other Aramaic portions (Ezr 4:8 Ezr 6:18 with Ezr 7:12-26; also Jer 10:11. The Syriac and Chaldee are properly Western and Eastern Aramaic. <\/p>\n O king. This is the first Aramaic word so written. Compare Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:6, Dan 6:21. Neh 2:3. <\/p>\n Dan 2:4<\/p>\n Dan 2:4 Then spakeH1696 the ChaldeansH3778 to the kingH4428 in Syriack,H762 O king,H4430 liveH2418 for ever:H5957 tellH560 thy servantsH5649 the dream,H2493 and we will shewH2324 the interpretation.H6591 <\/p>\n Dan 2:4 <\/p>\n Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.<\/p>\n Syriack is a term for the Syrian language which was 6th century Aramaic. The Chaldeans obviously speak to each other in their own peculiar tongue choosing to keep themselves distinct from the general populace. For this occasion when standing before the king of Babylonia, they thought it wise to address him in his own tongue. Especially in view of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was obviously in a vile mood and they did not know what his dream was so they were at a distinct disadvantage. <\/p>\n Syriack <\/p>\n From Dan 2:4 to Dan 7:28 the Book of Daniel is written in Aramaic the ancient language of Syria, and substantially identical with Chaldaic, the language of ancient Babylonia. Upon this fact, together with the occurrence of fifteen Persian, and three Greek words has been based an argument against the historicity of Daniel, and in favour of a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander (B.C. 332). It has, however, seemed, with some modern exceptions, to the Hebrew and Christian scholarship of the ages an unanswerable proof rather of the Danielic authorship of the book that, living from boyhood in a land the language of which was Chaldaic, a great part of his writing should be in that tongue. It has often been pointed out that the Chaldaic of Daniel is of high antiquity, as is shown by comparison with that of the Targums. The few words of Persian and Greek in like manner confirm the writer’s residence at a court constantly visited by emissaries from those peoples. It is noteworthy that the Aramaic section is precisely that part of Daniel which most concerned the peoples amongst whom he lived, and to whom a prophecy written in Hebrew would have been unintelligible. The language returns to Hebrew in the predictive portions which have to do with the future of Israel. “The Hebrew of Daniel is closely related to that of Ezekiel.”–Delitzsch. <\/p>\n in: Gen 31:47, Ezr 4:7, Isa 36:11 <\/p>\n Syriack: Aramith, “Aramean,” the language of Aram or Syria; a general term comprehending both the Chaldee and Syriac, the latter merely differing from the former as a dialect, and being written in a different character. With the following words the Chaldee part of Daniel commences; and is continued to the end of the Dan 7:1. <\/p>\n O king: Dan 3:9, Dan 4:19, Dan 5:10, Dan 6:6, Dan 6:21, 1Sa 10:24, 1Ki 1:25, 1Ki 1:31, Neh 2:3, Mat 21:9, Mar 11:9, Mar 11:10 <\/p>\n tell: Dan 4:7, Dan 5:8, Gen 41:8, Isa 44:25 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Sa 16:16 – God save the king 2Ki 18:26 – in the Syrian language Dan 2:7 – Let Dan 4:9 – tell<\/p>\n Dan 2:4. Syriac was similar to the language spoken by the Jews, and was the common tongue of the court of Babylon. This explains why the wise men used it when speaking to Nebuchadnezzar. They made what they doubtless thought was a reasonable statement, that if the king would tell them his dream they could give the interpretation of it. <\/p>\n Dan 2:4. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac The ancient Chaldee and the Syrian language were the same: see Gen 31:47; 2Ki 18:26; Ezr 4:7. This language is found in its greatest purity in the books of Daniel and Ezra. The following part of the chapter, from this verse, is written in Chaldee, and so on to the end of the seventh chapter: the reason of which seems to be, that what is said from hence to the end of that chapter, relates chiefly to the Chaldeans, or the inhabitants of Babylonia; whereas what follows, from the beginning of the eighth chapter, refers mostly to the Jewish people, and therefore is written in Hebrew.<\/p>\n 2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in {f} Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.<\/p>\n (f) That is, in the Syrian language, which differed not much from the Chaldeans, except it seemed to be more eloquent, and therefore the learned used to speak it, as the Jewish writers do to this day.<\/p>\n 2. The failure of the king’s wise men 2:4-13<\/span><\/p>\n The Chaldeans took the lead in replying to the king. They responded in the Aramaic language that was widely used in business and government throughout the empire.<\/p>\n "Aramaic was called Chaldean until the latter half of the nineteenth century." [Note: Young, p. 59.] <\/span><\/p>\n This reference to Aramaic introduces the section of the book that Daniel wrote in Aramaic (Dan 2:4 to Dan 7:28), apparently because it concerns matters of worldwide concern. Critics of the Book of Daniel have alleged that Aramaic was not in use when Daniel is supposed to have lived, but there is evidence of its use in the sixth century B.C. [Note: See ibid, pp. 38-39.] <\/span> The Chaldeans addressed the king with appropriate respect: "O king, live forever!" (cf. 1Ki 1:31; Neh 2:3; Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:21).<\/p>\n "This represented a wish or hope that the king would live on from one age to another, with no foreseeable termination by death." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 40.] <\/span><\/p>\n Evidently it was customary for the Babylonian kings to tell their dreams to their advisers, who would then provide a politically correct interpretation that would satisfy the monarch. However, Nebuchadnezzar wanted his wise men not only to give him an interpretation but also to tell him what he had dreamed.<\/p>\n "The [Chaldean] dream manuals, of which several examples have come to light, consist . . . of historical dreams and the events that followed them, arranged systematically for easy reference. Since these books had to try to cover every possible eventuality they became inordinately long; only the expert could find his way through them, and even he had to know the dream to begin with before he could search for the nearest possible parallel. The unreasonable demands of the king and the protests of the interpreters in Dan 2:3-11 are in keeping with his character and the known facts concerning dream books." [Note: Baldwin, p. 87. See also A. L. Oppenheim, "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373.] <\/span><\/p>\n Then spoke the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, O king, live forever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. 4. in Syriack ] in Aramaic, i.e. the language of the Aramaeans, an important branch of the Semitic stock, inhabiting chiefly Mesopotamia, Syria, and part of Arabia. There were numerous ‘Aramaic’ … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 2:4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"