Dan 3 | KD | STEP | Nebuchadnezzar commanded a golden image to be erected, of threescore cubits in height and six cubits in breadth. צלם is properly an image in human likeness (cf. ), and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or an obelisk, for which מצּבה would have been the appropriate word. Yet from the use of the word צלם it is not by any means to be concluded that the image was in all respects perfectly in human form. As to the upper part - the head, countenance, arms, breast - it may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar. This would be altogether in accordance with the Babylonian art, which delighted in grotesque, gigantic forms; cf. Hgstb. Beitr . i. p. 96f. The measure, in height threescore cubits, in breadth six cubits, is easily explained, since in the human figure the length is to be breadth in the proportion of about six to one. In the height of threescore cubits the pedestal of the image may be regarded as included, so that the whole image according to its principal component part ( a potiori ) was designated as צלם; although the passage Jdg 18:30-31, adduced by Kran., where mention is made of the image alone which was erected by Micah, without any notice being taken of the pedestal belonging to it (cf. Jdg 18:17 and Jdg 18:18), furnishes no properly authentic proof that פּסל in Jdg 18:30 and Jdg 18:31 denotes the image with the pedestal. The proportion between the height and the breadth justifies, then, in no respect the rejection of the historical character of the narrative. Still less does the mass of gold necessary for the construction of so colossal an image, since, as has been already mentioned, according to the Hebrew modes of speech, we are not required to conceive of the figure as having been made of solid gold, and since, in the great riches of the ancient world, Nebuchadnezzar in his successful campaigns might certainly accumulate an astonishing amount of this precious metal. The statements of Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Babylonian idol-images, as well as the description in of the construction of idol-images, lead us to think of the image as merely overlaid with plates of gold. The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. The ancients make mention of two places of the name of Dura , the one at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties itself into the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v. 52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon, which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs , S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene, could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert ( Expéd. Scientif. en Mésopotamie , i. p. 238ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one which is named el Mokattat (= la colline alignée ), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques crues (Arab. lbn ), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar. There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image. According to the common view (cf. e.g., Hgstb. Beitr . i. p. 97), Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it with religious ceremonies. On the other hand, Hofm. ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god which Nebuchadnezzar required ( , , ) from his officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods; and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image, because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But the idea of representing the world-power founded by him as a צלם was probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the tselem seen (Daniel 2) by him in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that the significance off the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zündel (p. 13), explain the absence of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue, because the supposition of Daniel’s not having been called to be present is a mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous.

‏ Daniel 3

Nebuchadnezzar commanded a golden image to be erected, of threescore cubits in height and six cubits in breadth. צלם is properly an image in human likeness (cf. Dan 2:31), and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or an obelisk, for which מצּבה would have been the appropriate word. Yet from the use of the word צלם it is not by any means to be concluded that the image was in all respects perfectly in human form. As to the upper part - the head, countenance, arms, breast - it may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar. This would be altogether in accordance with the Babylonian art, which delighted in grotesque, gigantic forms; cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 96f. The measure, in height threescore cubits, in breadth six cubits, is easily explained, since in the human figure the length is to be breadth in the proportion of about six to one. In the height of threescore cubits the pedestal of the image may be regarded as included, so that the whole image according to its principal component part (a potiori) was designated as צלם; although the passage Jdg 18:30-31, adduced by Kran., where mention is made of the image alone which was erected by Micah, without any notice being taken of the pedestal belonging to it (cf. Jdg 18:17 and Jdg 18:18), furnishes no properly authentic proof that פּסל in Jdg 18:30 and Jdg 18:31 denotes the image with the pedestal. The proportion between the height and the breadth justifies, then, in no respect the rejection of the historical character of the narrative. Still less does the mass of gold necessary for the construction of so colossal an image, since, as has been already mentioned, according to the Hebrew modes of speech, we are not required to conceive of the figure as having been made of solid gold, and since, in the great riches of the ancient world, Nebuchadnezzar in his successful campaigns might certainly accumulate an astonishing amount of this precious metal. The statements of Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Babylonian idol-images, ^{▼▼According to Herod. i. 183, for the great golden image of Belus, which was twelve cubits high, and the great golden table standing before it, the golden steps and the golden chair, only 800 talents of gold were used; and according to Diod. Sic. ii. 9, the golden statue, forty feet high, placed in the temple of Belus consisted of 1000 talents of gold, which would have been not far from sufficient if these objects had been formed of solid gold. Diod. also expressly says regarding the statue, that it was made with the hammer, and therefore was not solid. Cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 98, and Kran. in loco.} as well as the description in Isa 40:19 of the construction of idol-images, lead us to think of the image as merely overlaid with plates of gold.

The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. The ancients make mention of two places of the name of Dura, the one at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties itself into the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v. 52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon, which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene, could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Expéd. Scientif. en Mésopotamie, i. p. 238ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one which is named el Mokattat (=la colline alignée), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques crues (Arab. lbn), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar. ^{▼▼“On seeing this mound,” Oppert remarks (l. c. p. 239), “one is immediately struck with the resemblance which it presents to the pedestal of a colossal statue, as, for example, that of Bavaria near Münich, and everything leads to the belief that the statue mentioned in the book of Daniel (Dan 3:1) was set up in this place. The fact of the erection by Nebuchadnezzar of a colossal statue has nothing which can cause astonishment, however recent may have been the Aramean form of the account of Scripture.” Oppert, moreover, finds no difficulty in the size of the statue, but says regarding it: “There is nothing incredible in the existence of a statue sixty cubits high and six cubits broad; moreover the name of the plain of Dura, in the province (מדינה) of Babylon, agrees also with the actual conformation of the ruin.”}

There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image. According to the common view (cf. e.g., Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 97), Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it with religious ceremonies. On the other hand, Hofm. (Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god which Nebuchadnezzar required (Dan 3:12, Dan 3:14, Dan 3:18) from his officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods; and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image, because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But the idea of representing the world-power founded by him as a צלם was probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the tselem seen (Daniel 2) by him in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that the significance off the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zündel (p. 13), explain the absence of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue, because the supposition of Daniel’s not having been called to be present is a mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous. Dan 3:2-7

Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the chief officers of the kingdom to be present at the solemn dedication of the image. שׁלח, he sent, viz., מלאכים or רצים messengers, 1Sa 11:7; 2Ch 30:6, 2Ch 30:10; Est 3:15. Of the great officers of state, seven classes are named: - 1. אחשׁדּרפּניּא, i.e., administrators of the Khshatra, in Old Pers. dominion, province, and pâvan in Zend., guardians, watchers, in Greek Σατράπης, the chief representatives of the king in the provinces. 2. סגניּא, Hebr. סגנים, from the Old Pers. (although not proved) çakana, to command (see under Dan 2:48), commanders, probably the military chiefs of the provinces. 3. פּחותא, Hebr. פּחה, פחות, also an Old Pers. word, whose etymon and meaning have not yet been established (see under Hag 1:1), denotes the presidents of the civil government, the guardians of the country; cf. Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14; Neh 5:14, Neh 5:18. 4. אדרגּזריּא, chief judges, from the Sem. גזר, to distinguish, and אדר, dignity (cf. אדרמּלך), properly, chief arbitrators, counsellors of the government. 5. גּדבריּא, a word of Aryan origin, from גּדבר, identical with גּזבּר, masters of the treasury, superintendents of the public treasury. 6. דּתבריּא, the Old Pers. dâta - bara, guardians of the law, lawyers (cf. דּת, law). 7. תּפתּיּא, Semitic, from Arab. fty IV to give a just sentence, thus judges in the narrower sense of the word. Finally, all שׁלטני, rulers, i.e., governors of provinces, prefects, who were subordinate to the chief governor, cf. Dan 2:48-49.

All these officers were summoned “to come (מתא from אתא, with the rejection of the initial )א to the dedication of the image.” The objection of v. Leng. and Hitz., that this call would “put a stop to the government of the country,” only shows their ignorance of the departments of the state-government, and by no means makes the narrative doubtful. The affairs of the state did not lie so exclusively in the hands of the presidents of the different branches of the government, as that their temporary absence should cause a suspension of all the affairs of government. חנכּה is used of the dedication of a house (Deu 20:5) as well as of the temple (1Ki 8:63; 2Ch 7:5; Ezr 6:16), and here undoubtedly denotes an act connected with religious usages, by means of which the image, when the great officers of the kingdom fell down before it, was solemnly consecrated as the symbol of the world-power and (in the heathen sense) of its divine glory. This act is described (Dan 3:3-7) in so far as the object contemplated rendered it necessary.

When all the great officers of state were assembled, a herald proclaimed that as soon as the sound of the music was heard, all who were present should, on pain of death by being cast into the fire, fall down before the image and offer homage to it; which they all did as soon as the signal was given. The form קאמין, Dan 3:3, corresponds to the sing. קאם (Dan 2:31) as it is written in Syr., but is read קימין. The Masoretes substitute for it in the Talm. The common form קימין; cf. Fürst, Lehrgb. der aram. Idiom. p. 161, and Luzzatto, Elem. Gram. p. 33. The expression לקבל, Dan 3:3, and Ezr 4:16, is founded on קבל, the semi-vowel of the preceding sound being absorbed, as in the Syr. lû-kebel. On כּרוזא, herald, and on the form לכון, see under Dan 2:5. אמרין, they say, for “it is said to you.” The expression of the passive by means of a plural form of the active used impersonally, either participially or by 3rd pers. perf. plur., is found in Hebr., but is quite common in Chald.; cf. Ewald, Lehr. d. hebr. Spr. §128, b, and Winer, Chald. Gram. §49, 3. The proclamation of the herald refers not only to the officers who were summoned to the festival, but to all who were present, since besides the officers there was certainly present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. אמּיּא denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. אמּה, אמּות Gen 25:16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and Num 25:15 the separate tribes of the Midianites, and is thus not so extensive in its import as עמּין, peoples. לשּׁניּא, corresponding to הלּשׁות, Isa 66:18, designates (vide Gen 10:5, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of language are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command. It is a mode of expression (cf. Dan 3:7, Dan 3:29, 31[4:1], and Dan 6:26[25]) specially characterizing the pathetic style of the herald and the official language of the world-kingdom, which Daniel also (Dan 5:19; Dan 7:14) makes use of, and which from the latter passage is transferred to the Apocalypse, and by the union of these passages in Daniel with Isa 66:18 is increased to ἔθνη (גּוים in Isa.), φυλλαι,́ λαοὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι (Rev 5:9; Rev 7:9; Rev 13:7; Rev 14:6; Rev 17:15).

In the same passage זמנא בּהּ, Dan 3:7 (cf. also Dan 3:8), is interchanged with בּעדּנא, at the time (Dan 3:5 and Dan 3:15); but it is to be distinguished from בּהּ־שׁעתּא, at the same moment, Dan 3:6 and Dan 3:15; for שׁעא or שׁעה has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment, cf. Dan 4:16, Dan 4:30; Dan 5:5, and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbin. In the enumeration also of the six names of the musical instruments with the addition: and all kinds of music, the pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed. Regarding the Greek names of three of these instruments see p. 507. The great delight of the Babylonians in music and stringed instruments appears from Isa 14:11 and Psa 137:3, and is confirmed by the testimony of Herod. i. 191, and Curtius, Dan 3:3. קרנא, horn, is the far-sounding tuba of the ancients, the קרן or שׁופר of the Hebr.; see under Jos 6:5. משׁרוקיתא, from שׁרק, to hiss, to whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the lxx and Theodot. σύριγξ, the shepherd's or Pan’s pipes, which consisted of several reeds of different thicknesses and of different lengths bound together, and, according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, iv. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes. קיתתס (according to the Kethiv; but the Keri and the Targ. and Rabbin. give the form קתרס) is the Greek κιθάρα or κίθαρις, harp, for the Greek ending ις becomes ος in the Aramaic, as in many similar cases; cf. Ges.Thes. p. 1215. סבּכא, corresponding to the Greek σαμβύκη, but a Syrian invention, is, according to Athen. iv. p. 175, a four-stringed instrument, having a sharp, clear tone; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 935. פּסנמּרין (in Dan 3:7 written with a טinstead of תand in Dan 3:10 and Dan 3:15 pointed with a Tsere under the )ת is the Greek ψαλτήριον, of which the Greek ending ιον becomes abbreviated in the Aram. into ין (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1116). The word has no etymology in the Semitic. It was an instrument like a harp, which according to Augustin (on Psa 33:2 [32:2] and Psa 43:4 [42:4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the sounding-board, those of the psalterium (or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Rosellini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., Table xiii. 4). סוּמפּניה, in Dan 3:10 סיפניה, is not derived from ספן, contignare, but is the Aramaic form of συμφωνία, bag-pipes, which is called in Italy at the present day sampogna, and derives its Greek name from the accord of two pipes placed in the bag; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 941. זמרא signifies, not “song,” but musical playing, from reemaz, to play the strings, ψάλλειν; and because the music of the instrument was accompanied with song, it means also the song accompanying the music. The explanation of זמרא by singing stands here in opposition to the זני כּל, since all sorts of songs could only be sung after one another, but the herald speaks of the simultaneous rise of the sound. The limiting of the word also to the playing on a stringed instrument does not fit the context, inasmuch as wind instruments are also named. Plainly in the words זמרא זני כּל all the other instruments not particularly named are comprehended, so that זמרא is to be understood generally of playing on musical instruments. בּהּ־שׁעתּא, in the same instant. The frequent pleonastic use in the later Aramaic of the union of the preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, whereby the preposition is frequently repeated before the noun, as e.g., בּדּניּאל בּהּ, Dan 5:12, cf. Dan 5:30, has in the Bibl. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense even this, even that.

Homage was commanded to be shown to the image under the pain of death to those who refused. Since “the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar was founded not by right, but by the might of conquest” (Klief.), and the homage which he commanded to be shown to the image was regarded not only as a proof of subjection under the power of the king, but comprehended in it also the recognition of his gods as the gods of the kingdom, instances of refusal were to be expected. In the demand of the king there was certainly a kind of religious oppression, but by no means, as Bleek, v. Leng., and other critics maintain, a religious persecution, as among heathen rulers Antiochus Epiphanes practised it. For so tolerant was heathenism, that it recognised the gods of the different nations; but all heathen kings required that the nations subdued by them should also recognise the gods of their kingdom, which they held to be more powerful than were the gods of the vanquished nations. A refusal to yield homage to the gods of the kingdom they regarded as an act of hostility against the kingdom and its monarch, while every one might at the same time honour his own national god. This acknowledgement, that the gods of the kingdom were the more powerful, every heathen could grant; and thus Nebuchadnezzar demanded nothing in a religious point of view which every one of his subjects could not yield. To him, therefore, the refusal of the Jews could not but appear as opposition to the greatness of his kingdom. But the Jews, or Israelites, could not do homage to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar without rejecting their faith that Jehovah alone was God, and that besides Him there were no gods. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar practised towards them, without, from his polytheistic standpoint, designing it, an intolerable religious coercion, which, whoever, is fundamentally different from the persecution of Judaism by Antiochus Epiphanes, who forbade the Jews on pain of death to serve their God, and endeavoured utterly to destroy the Jewish religion. - Regarding the structure of the fiery furnace, see under Dan 3:22. Dan 3:8-12

The Chaldeans immediately denounced Daniel’s three friends as transgressors of the king’s command. דּנה כּל־קבל, therefore, viz., because the friends of Daniel who were placed over the province of Babylon had not, by falling down before the golden image, done it homage. That they did not do so is not expressly said, but is expressed in what follows. כּשׂדּאין גּברין are not Chaldeans as astrologers of magi (כּשׂדּים), but members of the Chaldean nation, in contrast to יהוּדיא, the Jews. קרבוּ, they came near to the king. דּי קרצי אכל, literally, to eat the flesh of any one, is in Aramaic the common expression for to calumniate, to denounce. That which was odious in their report was, that they used this instance of disobedience to the king’s command on the part of the Jewish officers as an occasion of removing them from their offices, - that their denunciation of them arose from their envying the Jews their position of influence, as in Dan 6:5 (4)f. Therefore they give prominence to the fact that the king had raised these Jews to places of rule in the province of Babylon.

With this form of address in Dan 3:9, cf. Dan 2:4. טעם שׂים signifies in Dan 3:12 rationem reddere, to attend to, to have regard for. In Dan 3:10, as frequently, the expression signifies, on the contrary, to give an opinion, a judgment, i.e., to publish a command. The Keth. לאלהיך (Dan 3:12), for which the Keri prefers the sing. form לאלהך, in sound the same as the contracted plur., is to be maintained as correct; for the Keri here, as in Dan 3:18, supporting itself on לאלהי, Dan 3:14, rests on the idea that by the honouring of his god only the doing of homage to the image is meant, while the not doing homage to the image only gives proof of this, that they altogether refused to honour the gods of Nebuchadnezzar. This is placed in the foreground by the accusers, so as to arouse the indignation of the king. “These Chaldeans,” Hitz. remarks quite justly, “knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be well known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobey the king’s command, they make use of their knowledge.” Dan 3:13

That they succeeded in their object, Nebuchadnezzar shows in the command given in anger and fury to bring the rebels before him. היתיוּ, notwithstanding its likeness to the Hebr. Hiphil form התיוּ, Isa 21:14, is not the Hebraizing Aphel, but, as היתית, Dan 6:18, shows, is a Hebraizing passive from of the Aphel, since the active form is היתיו, Dan 5:3, and is a passive formation peculiar to the Bib. Chald, for which in the Targg. Ittaphal is used.The trial of the accused. Dan 3:14

The question הצדא the old translators incorrectly explain by Is it true? In the justice of the accusation Nebuchadnezzar had no doubt whatever, and צדא has not this meaning. Also the meaning, scorn, which אּצדי in Aram. has, and L. de Dieu, Häv., and Kran. make use of, does not appear to be quite consistent, since Nebuchadnezzar, if he had seen in the refusal to do homage to the image a despising of his gods, then certainly he would not have publicly repeated his command, and afforded to the accused the possibility of escaping the threatened punishment, as he did (Dan 3:15). We therefore agree with Hitz. and Klief., who interpret it, after the Hebr. צדיּה, Num 35:20., of malicious resolution, not merely intention, according to Gesen., Winer, and others. For all the three could not unintentionally or accidentally have made themselves guilty of transgression. The form הצדא we regard as a noun form with הinterrog. prefixed in adverbial cases, and not an Aphel formation: Scorning, Shadrach, etc., do ye not serve? (Kran.) The affirmative explanation of the verse, according to which the king would suppose the motive of the transgression as decided, does not agree with the alternative which (Dan 3:15) he places before the accused. But if הצדא is regarded as a question, there is no need for our supplying the conjunction דּי before the following verb, but we may unite the חצדא in one sentence with the following verb: “are ye of design ... not obeying?” Nebuchadnezzar speaks of his god in contrast to the God of the Jews. Dan 3:15 עתידין taken with the following clause, תּפּלוּן ... דּי, is not a circumlocution for the future (according to Winer, Chald. Gram. §45, 2). This does not follow from the use of the simple future in contrast, but it retains its peculiar meaning ready. The conclusion to the first clause is omitted, because it is self-evident from the conclusion of the second, opposed passage: then ye will not be cast into the fiery furnace. Similar omissions are found in Exo 32:32; Luk 13:9. For the purpose of giving strength to his threatening, Nebuchadnezzar adds that no god would deliver them out of his hand. In this Hitz. is not justified in supposing there is included a blaspheming of Jehovah like that of Sennacherib, Isa 37:10. The case is different. Sennacherib raised his gods above Jehovah, the God of the Jews; Nebuchadnezzar only declares that deliverance out of the fiery furnace is a work which no god can accomplish, and in this he only indirectly likens the God of the Jews to the gods of the heathen. Dan 3:16

In the answer of the accused, נבוּכדנצּר is not, contrary to the accent, to be placed in apposition to למלכּא; for, as Kran. has rightly remarked, an intentional omission of מלכּא in addressing Nebuchadnezzar is, after Dan 3:18, where מלכּא occurs in the address, as little likely as that the Athnach is placed under למלכּא only on account of the apposition going before, to separate from it the nomen propr.; and an error in the placing of the distinctivus, judging from the existing accuracy, is untenable. “The direct address of the king by his name plainly corresponds to the king’s address to the three officers in the preceding words, Dan 3:14.” We are not to conclude from it, as Hitz. supposes, “that they address him as a plebeian,” but much rather, as in the corresponding address, Dan 3:14, are to see in it an evidence of the deep impression sought to be produced in the person concerned. פּתגּם is the accus., and is not to be connected with דּנה על: as to this command (Häv.). If the demonstrative were present only before the noun, then the noun must stand in the status absol. as Dan 4:15 (18). פּתגּם, from the Zend. paiti = πρός, and gâm, to go, properly, “the going to,” therefore message, edict, then generally word (as here) and matter (Ezr 6:11), as frequently in the Targ., corresponding to the Hebr. דּבר. Dan 3:17-18 יכיל denotes the ethical ability, i.e., the ability limited by the divine holiness and righteousness, not the omnipotence of God as such. For this the accused did not doubt, nor will they place in question the divine omnipotence before the heathen king. The conclusion begins after the Athnach, and הן means, not see! lo! (according to the old versions and many interpreters), for which Daniel constantly uses אלוּ or ארו, but it means if, as here the contrast לא והן, and if not (Dan 3:18), demands. There lies in the answer, “If our God will save us, then ... and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods,” neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle (Dan 3:17), nor fanaticism (Dan 3:18), as Berth., v. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God. “The three simply see that their standpoint and that of the king are altogether different, also that their standpoint can never be clearly understood by Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they give up any attempt to justify themselves. But that which was demanded of them they could not do, because it would have been altogether contrary to their faith and their conscience. And then without fanaticism they calmly decline to answer, and only say, 'Let him do according to his own will;' thus without superstitiousness committing their deliverance to God” (Klief.). Dan 3:19-20 The judgment pronounced on the accused, their punishment, and their miraculous deliverance.

After the decided refusal of the accused to worship his gods, Nebuchadnezzar changed his countenance toward them. Full of anger at such obstinacy, he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times greater than was usual (Dan 3:19), and that the rebels should be bound in their clothes by powerful men of his army, and then cast into the furnace (Dan 3:20, Dan 3:21). The form of his countenance changed, and his wrath showed itself in the lineaments of his face. The Kethiv אשׁתּנּו (plur.) refers to the genitive [אנפּוהי, plur., “of his countenances”] as the chief idea, and is not, after the Keri, to be changed into the sing. למזא for למאזא. On הד־שׁבעה, sevenfold, cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §59, 5. חזה דּי על, beyond that which was fit, i.e., which was necessary. Seven is used as expressive of an exceedingly great number, with reference to the religious meaning of the punishment. Dan 3:21

Of the different parts of clothing named, סרבּלין are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwâr, which in the Arabic is sarâwîl; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal, which means tunica or indusium; cf. Ges. Thes. ^{▼▼The lxx have omitted סרבּלין in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by σαράβαρα, and the third-named piece of dress כּרבּלן by περικνημῖδες, which the lxx have rendered by τιάρας ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν. Theodoret explains it: περικνημῖδας δὲ τὰς καλουμένας ἀναξυρίδας λέγει. These are, according to Herod. vii. 161, the αναχυρίδες, i.e., braccae, worn by the Persians περὶ τὰ σκέλεα. Regarding Σαράβαρα Theodoret remarks: ἔστι Περσικῶν περιβολαίων εἴδη. Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the σαράβαρα (סרבּלין) from the περικνημῖδες; but the false interpretation of סרבּלין by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with כּרבּלן, and the identification of the two, the περικνημῖδες being interpreted of covering for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: “cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceamentis et vestibus,” while Luther has “cloaks, shoes, and hats.” This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwâr into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: Σαράβαρα ἐσθὴς Περσικὴ ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι βρακία. Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains σαράβαρα by βρακία, κνημῖδες, σκελέαι. Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara orsaraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.} p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, סרבּלין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פּטישׁיהון, for which the Keri uses the form פּטשׁיהון, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כּתנת, tunica, and is derived from פשׁט, expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion’s translation, τιάραι, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek πέτασος, the covering for the head worn by the ἔφηβοι. כּרבּלן are mantles, from כּרבּל, R. כּבל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1Ch 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מעיל (upper garment). לבוּשׁיהון are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and 2Ki 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סרבּלין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פּטישׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כּרבּלא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לבוּשׁיהון the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood. ^{▼▼With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus l.c., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.}

The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out. Dan 3:22-23 דּי מן (because that), a further explanatory expression added to דּנה כּל־קבל (wholly for this cause): because the word of the king was sharp, and in consequence of it (ו), the furnace was heated beyond measure for that reason. The words אלּך גּבריּא (these mighty men) stand here in the status absol., and are again taken up in the pronoun המּון after the verb קטּל. If the three were brought up to the furnace, it must have had a mouth above, through which the victims could be cast into it. When heated to an ordinary degree, this could be done without danger to the men who performed this service; but in the present case the heat of the fire was so great, that the servants themselves perished by it. This circumstance also is mentioned to show the greatness of the miracle by which the three were preserved unhurt in the midst of the furnace. The same thing is intended by the repetition of the word מכפּתין, bound, Dan 3:23, which, moreover, is purposely placed at the close of the passage to prepare for the contrast שׁרין, at liberty, free from the bonds, Dan 3:25. ^{▼▼Between Dan 3:23 and Dan 3:24 the lxx have introduced the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three men in the fiery furnace; and these two hymns are connected together by a narrative which explains the death of the Chaldeans who threw the three into the furnace, and the miracle of the deliverance of Daniel’s friends. Regarding the apocryphal origin of these additions, composed in the Greek language, which Luther in his translation has rightly placed in the Apocrypha, see my Lehr. der Einl. in d. A. Test. §251.} Dan 3:24-27

The king, who sat watching the issue of the matter, looked through the door into the furnace, and observed that the three who had been cast into it bound, walked about freed from their bonds and unhurt; and, in truth, he saw not the three only, but also a fourth, “like to a son of the gods,” beside them. At this sight he was astonished and terrified. He hastily stood up; and having assured himself by a consultation with his counsellors that three men had indeed been cast bound into the furnace, while he saw four walking in the midst of it, he approached the mouth of the furnace and cried to the three to come forth. They immediately came out, and were inspected by the assembled officers of state, and found to be wholly uninjured as to their bodies, their clothes being unharmed also, and without even the smell of fire upon them. הדּברין refers, without doubt, to the officers of the kingdom, ministers or counselors of state standing very near the king, since they are named in Dan 3:27 and Daniel 6:8 (Dan 6:7) along with the first three ranks of officers, and (Dan 4:23 [26]) during Nebuchadnezzar’s madness they conducted the affairs of government. The literal meaning of the word, however, is not quite obvious. Its derivation from the Chald. דּברין, duces, with the Hebr. article (Gesen.), which can only be supported by מדברא, Pro 11:14 (Targ.), is decidedly opposed by the absence of all analogies of the blending into one word of the article with a noun in the Semitic language. The Alkoran offers no corresponding analogues, since this word with the article is found only in the more modern dialects. But the meaning which P. v. Bohlen (Symbolae ad interp. s. Codicis ex ling. pers. p. 26) has sought from the Persian word which is translated by simul judex, i.e.,socius in judicio, is opposed not only by the fact that the compensation of the Mim by the Dagesch, but also the composition and the meaning, has very little probability.

The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e., as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In Dan 3:28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the religious conceptions of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods, according to the theogonic representation of the συζυγία of the gods peculiar to all Oriental religions, whose existence among the Babylonians the female divinity Mylitta associated with Bel places beyond a doubt; cf. Hgst. Beitr. i. p. 159, and Häv., Kran., and Klief. in loc.

Acting on this assumption, which did not call in question the deliverance of the accused by the miraculous interposition of the Deity, Nebuchadnezzar approached the door of the furnace and cried to the three men to come out, addressing them as the servants (worshippers) of the most high God. This address does not go beyond the circle of heathen ideas. He does not call the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego the only true God, but only the most high God, the chief of the gods, just as the Greeks called their Zeus ὁ ὕψιστος θεός. The Kethiv עלּיא (in Syr. ̀elāyā̀, to preserve) is here and everywhere in Daniel (v. 32; Dan 4:14, Dan 4:21, etc.) pointed by the Masoretes according to the form עילאה (with )ה prevailing in the Targg. The forms גשׁם, גּשׁמא, are peculiar to Daniel (v. 27f., Dan 4:30; Dan 5:21; Dan 7:11). The Targg. have גּוּשׁמא instead of it. Dan 3:28 The impression made by this event on Nebuchadnezzar.

The marvellous deliverance of the three from the flames of the furnace produced such an impression on Nebuchadnezzar, that he changed his earlier and humbler judgment (Dan 3:15) regarding the God of the Jews, and spoke now in praise of the might of this God. For at the same time he not only openly announced that He had saved (Dan 3:28) His servants, but also by an edict, issued to all the peoples of his kingdom, he forbade on pain of death the doing of any dishonour to the God of the Jews (Dan 3:29). Nebuchadnezzar, however, did not turn to the true God. He neither acknowledged Jehovah as the only, or the alone true God, nor did he command Him to be worshipped. He only declared Him to be a God who is able to save His servants as no other could, and merely forbade the despising and reviling of this God. Whoever speaks שׁלה, that which is erroneous or unjust, against the God of Shadrach, etc., shall be put to death. שׁלה, from שׁלה, to err, to commit a fault, is changed in the Keri into שׁלוּ, which occurs in Dan 6:5 and Ezr 4:22, and in the Targg.; but without sufficient ground, since with other words both forms are found together, e.g., ארמלא, vidua, with ארמלוּ, viduitas. According to this, שׁלוּ in abstr. means the error; שׁלה in concr., the erroneous. Hitz. finds the command partly too narrow, partly quite unsuitable, because an error, a simple oversight, should find pardon as soon as possible. But the distinction between a fault arising from mistake and one arising from a bad intention does not accord with the edict of an Oriental despot, which must be in decided terms, so that there may be no room in cases of transgression for an appeal to a mere oversight. Still less importance is to be attached to the objection that the carrying out of the command may have had its difficulties. but by such difficulties the historical character of the narrative is not brought under suspicion. As the Chaldeans in this case had watched the Jews and accused them of disobedience, so also could the Jews scattered throughout the kingdom bring before the tribunal the heathen who blasphemed their God. Dan 3:29-30

Regarding the collocation of the words עם אמּה ו, see under Dan 3:4; and regarding the Nymid@fha and the threatened punishment, see under Dan 2:5. כּדּנה we regard, with the lxx, Theodot., Vulg., and old interpreters, as a fem. adverbial: οὕτως, ita, as it occurs in Dan 2:10; Ezr 5:7, and Jer 10:11. The interpreting it as masculine, as this God, does not correspond with the heathen consciousness of God, to which a God perceptible by sight was more appropriate than a God invisible (Kran.). The history concludes (Dan 3:30) with the remark that Nebuchadnezzar now regarded the three men with the greatest favour. In what way he manifested his regard for them is not stated, inasmuch as this is not necessary to the object of the narrative. הצלח with ל, to give to any one happiness, prosperity, to cause him to be fortunate.

If we attentively consider the import of this narrative in its bearing on the history of the kingdom of God, we learn how the true worshippers of the Lord under the dominion of the world-power could and would come into difficulties, imperilling life, between the demands of the lords of this world and the duties they owe to God. But we also learn, that if in these circumstances they remain faithful to their God, they will in a wonderful manner be protected by Him; while He will reveal His omnipotence so gloriously, that even the heathen world-rulers will be constrained to recognise their God and to give Him glory. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream and His Madness - Daniel 4:1-37 (Hebrew_Bible_3:31-4:34)

This section (Daniel 4) is in the form of a proclamation by king Nebuchadnezzar to all the peoples of his kingdom, informing them of a wonderful event in which the living God of heaven made Himself known as the ruler over the kingdoms of men. After a short introduction (Daniel 3:31-4:2 [Dan 4:1-3]) the king makes known to his subjects, that amid the peaceful prosperity of his life he had dreamed a dream which filled him with disquietude, and which the wise men of Babylon could not interpret, until Daniel came, who was able to do so (Daniel 4:1-5 [Dan 4:4-8]). In his dream he saw a great tree, with vast branches and bearing much fruit, which reached up to heaven, under which beasts and birds found a lodging, shelter, and food. Then a holy watcher came down from heaven and commanded the tree to be cut down, so that its roots only remained in the earth, but bound with iron and brass, till seven times shall pass, so that men may know the power of the Most High over the kingdoms of men (vv. 6-15 [Dan 4:9-18]). Daniel interpreted to him this dream, that the tree represented the king himself, regarding whom it was resolved by Heaven that he should be driven forth from men and should live among the beasts till seven times should pass, and he should know that the Highest rules over the kingdoms of men (vv. 16-24 [Dan 4:19-27]). After twelve months this dream began to be fulfilled, and Nebuchadnezzar fell into a state of madness, and became like a beast of the field (vv. 25-30 [Dan 4:28-33]). But after the lapse of the appointed time his understanding returned to him, whereupon he was again restored to his kingdom and became exceeding great, and now praised and honoured the King of heaven (vv. 31-34 [Dan 4:34-37]).

If the preceding history teaches how the Almighty God wonderfully protects His true worshippers against the enmity of the world-power, this narrative may be regarded as an actual confirmation of the truth that this same God can so humble the rulers of the world, if in presumptuous pride they boast of their might, as to constrain them to recognise Him as the Lord over the kings of the earth. Although this narrative contains no miracle contrary to the course of nature, but only records a divine judgment, bringing Nebuchadnezzar for a time into a state of madness, - a judgment announced beforehand in a dream, and happening according to the prediction, - yet Bleek, v. Leng., Hitz., and others have rejected its historical veracity, and have explained it as only an invention by which the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel threatens the haughty Antiochus Epiphanes with the vengeance of Heaven, which shall compel him to recognise One higher than himself, namely, the God of Israel. A proof of this assertion of theirs they find in the form of the narrative. The proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar to all the nations of his kingdom, in which the matter is set forth, shows, in its introduction and its close, greater familiarity with biblical thoughts than one would have expected in Nebuchadnezzar. The doxologies, Daniel 3:33 (Dan 4:3) and Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34), agree almost literally with Psa 145:13; and in the praise of the omnipotence and of the infinite majesty of God, Daniel 4:32 (Dan 4:35), the echoes of Isa 40:17; Isa 43:13, Isa 43:24, Isa 43:21 cannot fail to be recognised. The circumstance that in vv. 25-30 (Dan 4:28-33) Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the third person, appears to warrant also the opinion that the writing was composed by some other person than by the king. But the use of the third person by Nebuchadnezzar in the verses named is fully explained from the contents of the passage (see Exposition), and neither justifies the conclusion that the author was a different person from the king, nor the supposition of Häv. that the vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33) are a passage parenthetically added by Daniel to the brief declaration of the edict, v. 25 (Dan 4:28), for the purpose of explaining it and making the matter better understood by posterity. The circumstance that v. 31 (Dan 4:34) refers to the statement of time in v. 26 (Dan 4:29), and that the royal proclamation would be incomplete without vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33), leads to the opposite conclusion. The existence of these biblical thoughts, however, even though not sufficiently explained by the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar had heard these thoughts and words in a conference on the matter with Daniel, and had appropriated them to himself, cannot be adduced against the genuineness of the edict, but only shows this much, that in the composition of it Nebuchadnezzar had made use of the pen of Daniel, whereby the praise of God received a fuller expression than Nebuchadnezzar would have given to it. For in the whole narrative of the event the peculiar heathen conceptions of the Chaldean king so naturally present themselves before us, that beyond question we read the very words used by Nebuchadnezzar himself.

Then it has been found in the highest degree strange that Nebuchadnezzar himself should have published to his people an account of his madness, instead of doing all to make this sad history forgotten. But, notwithstanding that the views of the ancients regarding madness were different from ours, we must say, with Klief. and others, on the contrary, that “publicity in such a case was better than concealment; the matter, besides, being certainly known, could not be made either better or worse by being made public. Nebuchadnezzar wishes to publish, not his madness, but the help which God had imparted to him; and that he did this openly does honour indeed to his magnanimous character.”

But the principal argument against the historical veracity of the occurrence is derived from the consideration that no mention is anywhere else made of he seven years’ madness, an event which certainly could not but introduce very important changes and complications into the Babylonian kingdom. It is true that the Hebrew history does not at all refer to the later years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, though it extends, Jer 52:31, to a period later than these times, and should, without doubt, give as much prominence to such a divine judgment against this enemy as to the fate of Sennacherib (2Ki 19:37) (Hitz.). But the brief notice, Jer 52:31, that king Jehoiachin, thirty-seven years after his deportation, was delivered from prison by Evilmerodach when he became king, afforded no opportunity to speak of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, which for a time rendered him incapable of conducting the affairs of government, but did not cause his death. And the reference to the murder of Sennacherib proves nothing regarding it, because, according to the view of Jeremiah and the biblical historians, Nebuchadnezzar occupied an altogether different relation to the theocracy from that of Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar appeared not as an arch-enemy, but as the servant of Jehovah he executed the will of God against the sinful kingdom of Judah; Sennacherib, on the contrary, in daring insolence derided the God of Israel, and was punished for this by the annihilation of his host, and afterwards murdered by his own son, while Nebuchadnezzar was cured of his madness.

But when the opponents of the genuineness moreover argue that even the Chaldean historian Berosus can have announced nothing at all regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, since Josephus, and Origen, and Jerome, who were well-versed in books, could find nothing in any author which pointed to such an event, it is to be replied, in the first place, that the representations of seven years’ duration of the madness, and of the serious complications which this malady must have brought on the Babylonian kingdom, are mere frivolous suppositions of the modern critics; for the text limits the duration of the malady only to seven times, by which we may understand seven months as well as seven years. The complications in the affairs of the kingdom were, moreover, prevented by an interim government. Then Hgstb. (Beitr. i. p. 101ff.), Häv., Del., and others, have rightly shown that not a single historical work of that period is extant, in which one could expect to find fuller information regarding the disease of Nebuchadnezzar, which is certainly very significant in sacred history, but which in no respect had any influence on the Babylonian kingdom. Herodotus, the father of history, did not know Nebuchadnezzar even by name, and seems to have had no information of his great exploits - e.g., of his great and important victory over the Egyptian host as Carchemish. Josephus names altogether only six authors in whose works mention is made of Nebuchadnezzar. But four of these authorities - viz.: The Annals of the Phoenicians, Philostratus, author of a Phoenician history, Megasthenes, and Diocles - are not here to be taken into account, because the first two contain only what relates to Phoenicia, the conquest of the land, and the siege of Tyre, the capital; while the other two, Megsth. in his Indian history, and Diocles in his Persian history, speak only quite incidentally of Nebuchadnezzar. There remain then, besides, only Berosus and Abydenus who have recorded the Chaldean history. But of Berosus, a priest of Belus at Babylon in the time of Alexander the Great, who had examined many and ancient documents, and is justly acknowledged to be a trustworthy historian, we possess only certain poor fragments of his Χαλδαι”κά quoted in the writings of Josephus, Eusebius, and later authors, no one of whom had read and extracted from the work of Berosus itself. Not only Eusebius, but, as M. v. Niebuhr has conclusively proved, Josephus also derived his account from Berosus only through the remains of the original preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, a “tumultuous worker,” whose abstract has no great security for accuracy, and still less for integrity, although he has not purposely falsified anything; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesh. Assurs, p. 12f. Abydenus lived much later. He wrote apparently after Josephus, since the latter has made no use of him, and thus he was not so near the original sources as Berosus, and was, moreover, to judge of his fragments which are preserved by Eusebius and Syncellus, not so capable of making use of them, although one cannot pass sentence against the trustworthiness of the peculiar sources used by him, since the notices formed from them, notwithstanding their independent on Berosus, agree well with his statements; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, p. 15f.

But if Josephus did not himself read the work of Berosus, but only reported what he found in the extracts by Polyhistor, we need not wonder though he found nothing regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s madness. And yet Josephus has preserved to us a notice from Berosus which points to the unusual malady by which Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted before his death, in the words, “Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the fore-mentioned wall, fell sick and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years” (contra Apion, i. 20). In these words lies more than the simple remark, that Nebuchadnezzar, as is wont to happen to the most of men, died after an illness going before, and not suddenly, as Berth., Hitz., and others wish to interpret it. Berosus uses a formula of this kind in speaking neither of Nabonedus nor of Neriglissor, who both died, not suddenly, but a natural death. He remarks only, however, of Nebuchadnezzar’s father: “Now it so fell out that he (his father Nabopolassar) fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon,” because he had before stated regarding him, that on account of the infirmity of old age he had committed to his son the carrying on of the war against Egypt; and hence the words, “at that time he fell into a distemper,” or the distemper which led to his death, acquire a particular significance. ^{▼▼When Hitzig adduces 2Ki 13:14 in support of his view, he has failed to observe that in this place is narrated how the tidings of Elisha’s sickness unto death gave occasion to the king Joash to visit the prophet, from whom he at that time received a significant prophetical announcement, and that thus this passage contains something quite different from the trivial notice merely that Elisha was sick previous to his death.}

If, accordingly, the “falling sick” pointed to an unusual affliction upon Nebuchadnezzar, so also the fact that Berosus adds to the statement of the distemper the account of his death, while on the contrary, according to this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar again recovered and reigned still longer, does not oppose the reference of the “distemper” to the king’s madness; for according to Berosus, as well as according to Daniel, the malady fell upon Nebuchadnezzar in the later period of his reign, after he had not only carried on wars for the founding and establishment of his world-kingdom, but had also, for the most part at least, finished his splendid buildings. After his recovery down to the time of his death, he carried forward no other great work, regarding which Berosus is able to give any communication; it therefore only remained for him to mention the fact of his death, along with the statement of the duration of his reign. No one is able, therefore, to conclude from his summary statement, that Nebuchadnezzar died very soon after his recovery from the madness.

A yet more distinct trace of the event narrated in this chapter is found in Abydenus, in the fragments preserved by Euseb. in the Praepar. evang. ix. 41, and in the Chronic. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 59, wherein Abydenus announces as a Chaldee tradition (λέγεται πρὸς Χαλδαίων), that Nebuchadnezzar, after the ending of his war in the farther west, mounted his royal tower, i.e., to the flat roof, and, there seized by some god (κατασχεθείη θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ), he oracularly (θεσπίσαι) announced to the Babylonians their inevitable subjugation by the Πέρσης ἡμίονος united with the Medes, who would be helped by their own Babylonian gods. He prayed that the Persian might be destroyed in the abyss of the sea, or condemned to wander about in a desert wilderness, inhabited only by wild beasts; and for himself he wished a peaceful death before these misfortunes should fall on the Chaldean empire. Immediately after this utterance Nebuchadnezzar was snatched away from the sight of men (παραχρῆμα ἠφάνιστο). In this Chaldean tradition Eusebius has recognised ^{▼▼In the Chron. Arm. p. 61, Eusebius has thus remarked, after recording the saying by Abyd.: “In Danielis sane historiis de Nabudhadonosoro narratur, quomodo et quo pacto mente captus fuerit: quod si Graecorum historici aut Chaldaei morbum tegunt et a Deo eum acceptum comminiscuntur, Deumque insaniam, quae in illum intravit, vel Daemonem quendam, qui in eum venerit, nominant, mirandum non est. Etenim hoc quidem illorum mos est, cuncta similia Deo adscribere, Deosque nominare Daemones.”} a disfigured tradition of this history; and even Bertholdt will not “deny that this strange saying is in its main parts identical with our Aramaic record.” On the other hand, Hitz. knows nothing else to bring forward than that “the statement sounds so fabulous, that no historical substance can be discovered in it.” But the historical substance lies in the occurrence which Daniel relates. As, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was on the roof of his palace when he was suddenly struck by God with madness, so also according to Abydenus he was ὡς ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήΐα when seized by some god, or possessed. Here not only the time and the place of the occurrence agree, but also the circumstance that the king’s being seized or bound was effected by some god, i.e., not by his own, but by a strange god. Not the less striking is the harmony in the curse which he prayed might fall on the Persian - "May he wander in the wilderness where no cities are, no human footstep, where wild beasts feed and the birds wander” - with the description of the abode of the king in his madness in Dan 5:21 : “And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; and they fed him with grass like oxen.” Moreover, though the designation of the Persian as ἡμίονος in Abyd. may not be formed from the ערדין of Daniel, but derived from old oracles regarding Cyrus diffused throughout the East, as Häv. (N. Krit. Unters. p. 53, under reference to Herod. i. 55, 91) regards as probable, then the harmony of the Chaldean tradition in Abyd. with the narrative in Daniel leaves no doubt that the fact announced by Daniel lies at the foundation of that tradition, but so changed as to be adapted to the mythic glorification of the hero who was celebrated, of whom Megasthenes says that he excelled Hercules in boldness and courage ( ̔Ηρακλέως ἀλκιμώτερον γεγονότα, in Euseb. Praep. ev. l.c.).

To represent the king’s state of morbid psychical bondage and want of freedom as his being moved by God with the spirit of prophecy was natural, from the resemblance which the mantic inspiration in the gestures of the ecstasy showed to the μανία (cf. The combination of וּמתנבּא משׁגּה אישׁ, Jer 29:26; 2Ki 9:11); and in the madness which for a time withdrew the founder of the world-kingdom from the exercise of his sovereignty there might appear as not very remote to the Chaldeans, families with the study of portents and prodigies as pointing out the fate of men and of nations, an omen of the future overthrow of the world-power founded by him. As the powerful monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar was transferred to the Πέρσης ἡμίονος not a full generation (25-26 years) after the death of its founder, it might appear conformable to the national vanity of the Chaldeans to give the interpretation to the ominous experience of the great king, that the celebrated hero himself before his death - θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ κατάσχετος - had prophesied its fall, and had imprecated on the destroyer great evil, but had wished for himself a happy death before these disasters should come.

But even if there were no such traditional references to the occurrence mentioned in this chapter, yet would the supposition of its invention be excluded by its nature. Although it could be prophesied to Antiochus as an ̓Επιμανής (madman) that he would wholly lose his understanding, yet there remains, as even Hitz. is constrained to confess, the choice of just this form of the madness, the insania zoanthropica, a mystery in the solution of which even the acuteness of this critic is put to shame; so that he resorts to the foolish conjecture that the Maccabean Jew had fabricated the history out of the name נבוכדנצר, since נבוך means oberravit cum perturbatione, and כדן, to bind, fasten, while the representation of the king as a tree is derived from the passages Isa 14:12; Eze 31:3. To this is to be added the fact, that the tendency attributed to the narrative does not at all fit the circumstances of the Maccabean times. With the general remark that the author wished to hold up as in a mirror before the eyes of Antiochus Epiphanes to what results haughty presumption against the Most High will lead, and how necessary it is penitentially to recognise His power and glory if he would not at length fall a victim to the severest judgments (Bleek), the object of the invention of so peculiar a malady becomes quite inconceivable. Hitzig therefore seeks to explain the tendency more particularly. “The transgressor Nebuchadnezzar, who for his haughtiness is punished with madness, is the type of that arrogant ̓Επιμανής, who also sought unsuitable society, as king degraded himself (Polyb. xxvi. 10), and yet had lately given forth a circular-letter of an altogether different character (1 Macc. 1:41ff.).” “If in v. 28 (Dan 4:31) the loss of the kingdom is placed before the view of Nebuchadnezzar (Antiochus Epiphanes), the passage appears to have been composed at a time when the Maccabees had already taken up arms, and gained the superiority (1 Macc. 2:42-48).” According to this, we must suppose that the author of this book, at a time when the Jews who adhered to their religion, under the leadership of Mattathias, marched throughout the land to put an end by the force of arms to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, had proposed to the cruel king the full restoration of his supremacy and the willing subjection of the Jews under his government, on the condition that he should recognise the omnipotence of their God. But how does such a proposal of peace agree with the war of the Jews led by Mattathias against the πׂδψσ, against the heathen and transgressors, whose horn (power) they suffer not to prosper (1 Macc. 2:47, 48)? How with the passionate address of the dying Mattathias, “Fear ye not the words of a sinful man (ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ, i.e., Antiochus), for his glory shall be dung and worms” (v. 62)? And wherein then consists the resemblance between the Nebuchadnezzar of his chapter and Antiochus Epiphanes? - the latter, a despot who cherished a deadly hatred against the Jews who withstood him; the former, a prince who showed his good-will toward the Jews in the person of Daniel, who was held in high esteem by him. Or is Nebuchadnezzar, in the fact that he gloried in the erection of the great Babylon as the seat of his kingdom, and in that he was exhorted by Daniel to show compassion toward the poor and the oppressed (v. 24 [Dan 4:27]), a type of Antiochus, “who sought improper society, and as king denied himself,” i.e., according to Polybius as quoted by Hitzig, delighted in fellowship with the lower classes of society, and spent much treasure amongst the poor handicraftsmen with whom he consorted? Or is there seen in the circular-letter of Antiochus, “that in his whole kingdom all should be one people, and each must give up his own laws,” any motive for the fabrication of the proclamation in which Nebuchadnezzar relates to all his people the signs and wonders which the most high God had done to him, and for which he praised the God of heaven?

And if we fix our attention, finally, on the relation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, shall that prophet as the counsellor of the heathen king, who in true affection uttered the wish that the dream might be to them that hated him, and the interpretation thereof to his enemies (v. 16 [Dan 4:19]), be regarded as a pattern to the Maccabees sacrificing all for the sake of their God, who wished for their deadly enemy Antiochus that his glory might sink into “dung and the worms?” Is it at all conceivable that a Maccabean Jew, zealous for the law of his fathers, could imagine that the celebrated ancient prophet Daniel would cherish so benevolent a wish toward the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, in order that by such an invention he might animate his contemporaries to stedfast perseverance in war against the ruthless tyrant Antiochus?

This total difference between the facts recorded in this chapter and the circumstances of the Maccabean times described in 1 Macc. 2:42-48, as Kranichfeld has fully shown, precludes any one, as he has correctly observed, “from speaking of a tendency delineated according to the original of the Maccabean times in the name of an exegesis favourable to historical investigation.” The efforts of a hostile criticism will never succeed on scientific grounds in changing the historical matters of fact recorded in this chapter into a fiction constructed with a tendency.