Pulpit Commentary - Daniel 2:1

Pulpit Commentary - Daniel 2:1 - 2:49

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Pulpit Commentary - Daniel 2:1 - 2:49

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

2:1 - 2:49

EXPOSITION

Dan_2:1-49

DANIEL FIRST BECOMES DISTINGUISHED.

Dan_2:1

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. The versions only differ verbally from the Massoretic text as represented by the above. The Septuagint renders "And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he chanced to fall into dreams and visions, and to be troubled with his vision, and his sleep went from him." The differences here that may evidence a difference of text are slight. Theodotion and the Peshitta are very close to the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders, "In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar saw a vision, and his spirit was troubled, and his vision (somnium) fled from him." If this is the true text of the Vulgate—and it is pre-Clementine—the variation seems too great for paraphrase, and yet it is an unlikely lectional variation. It is easier to imagine the change taking place in the Latin, somnus becoming somnium, especially if the final m was represented, as so often in Latin manuscripts, by a line over the preceding vowel. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This forms one of the chronological difficulties in the interpretation of Daniel. There seems to be a contradiction between the statement in this verse and the chronological data afforded us by the preceding chapter. If Nebuchadnezzar was already king when he placed Daniel and his three companions in the hands of "Ashpeuaz" and assigned them three years of study, then as the three years are by implication ended when the examination took place (Dan_1:18, Dan_1:19), the events narrated in this chapter must be dated not earlier than the third year of Nebuchadnezzar. Most commentators recognize this as a difficulty, the explaining of which is incumbent on them, whatever their views as to the date or authenticity of the book as a whole may be. A really great writer—and that title cannot be denied to the author of "Daniel," if the book be a fiction—could never fall into such a glaring self-contradiction. We do not deny that even very great writers have been guilty of chronological self-contradictions; but these contradictions were such as were not obvious. The only commentator who does not feel it incumbent on him, having noticed the difficulty, to give some hint of a possible solution, is Professor Bevan. From the obviousness of the discrepancy, we must assume that it was known to the writer, and from this we must further assume that the discrepancy was regarded by him as a merely apparent one, the explanation of which was so obvious at the time he wrote that it was needless to state it. In making this statement, we refer to the original documents from which our present Daniel was compiled. Another hypothesis certainly is possible—that there is a false reading here. Ewald has suggested the twelfth year, which implies that the word òÆùÀøÅä (esreh) has been omitted. The main difficulty is that there is no sign that there is any difference of reading. If we are to correct the reading, we must go behind the present book to those documents from which it has been formed. If this portion of Daniel is a translation and a condensation of an Aramaic text, then úÇøÀúÄéï (tar'teen) is "two," but "three" would be úÀìÈú (t'lath). When the ì loses from any cause.its upper part, it becomes little distinguishable from n; this renders it not impossible that in the original Aramaic narrative the events in this chapter were dated "the third year of Nebuchadnezzar," not "the second." This explanation does not apply to the older form of script as seen in Sindschirli or in Egypt. There have been various other ways of getting over the difficulty. One device, that of Josephus ('Antiq.,' 10.10. 3), maintained also by Jephet-ibn-Ali, is to date the reign from the conquest of Egypt, when Daniel is supposed to reckon that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign over the world. The conquest of Egypt, by means of certain recondite interpretations of Scripture, Jephet dates in the thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar; the date of this chapter, then, according to him, is the thirty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rashi explains this date by referring it to the destruction of the temple. There is, however, nothing to indicate that any of these dates was ever reckoned of importance in Babylonian chronology. And, however important the destruction of the temple was to the Jews, few of them, even at the latest date criticism assigns to Daniel, would have the hardihood to date a monarch's reign from this. Another solution is that the second year is reckoned from the time when these Jewish captives stood before the king. This would have implied a different reading, but, as we have said, so far as this clause is concerned, there is no variation. Another suggestion may be made, viz. that this appearance of Daniel before the king is the same as that mentioned in the previous chapter (Dan_1:18-20). This is Wieseler's hypothesis. As a reign was not reckoned from the date of accession, but from the beginning of the year following, Nebuchadnezzar's second year might well be the third year of the training of those Hebrew captives. The occasion of their appearance before the king may not have been that he took thought on the matter—a view which, though that of the Massoretic text, is not supported by the LXX.—but may have been caused by this disquieting dream. On the supposition which we have suggested, that in Dan_1:1-21. we have a condensed version from an Aramaic original, this solution is plausible. The main difficulty, that the quiet communing implied in the nineteenth verse does not suit the fury of the king and the threatened death of the wise men, cannot be pressed, as the communing might follow the interpretation. It may seem to some better to maintain that the incidents of this chapter occurred some little time after Daniel and his three companions were admitted to the royal council. The band of captives and hostages, with the mass of the Babylonian army, arrived at Babylon, according to Berosus, some time after Nebuchadnezzar himself, who had hurried across the desert; still, a month would probably be the utmost of the difference. There might, therefore, be many months to run before the first year of Nebuchadnezzar actually began, when these captives were placed under the charge of the Melzar; so that if our suggestion of a various reading of "third" instead of "second" be accepted, the years would be over while the "third" year of Nebuchadnezzar was still proceeding. However, although many prisoners and hostages may have been sent along with the main army, after Nebuchadnezzar ]earned of the death of his father, many may have been sent earlier, and among these Daniel. The main difficulty is to imagine the orders of Nebuchadnezzar, while merely crown prince, being carried out with such exactness, or that he should be spoken of as "my lord the king" (Dan_1:10). But their training must have begun during the lifetime of Nabopolassar, if the three years were completed while the see(rod year of Nebuchadnezzar was still to finish. If we reject both these solutions, we are shut up to the idea that there is something amiss with the reading—always a thing to be deprecated—and the simplest emendation is to imagine that the "third" has been misread "second." This, as we have shown, would be easy in Aramaic. On the assumption that the text before us is a translation and condensation of an Aramaic text, it is easy to understand how all derivative texts followed its initial mistake. There is a certain importance here due to the copula "and:" "And in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." When any cue attempts to read this verse in connection with the last verse of the first chapter, it at once becomes clear that the twenty-first verse of Dan_1:1-21. is an interpolation. It is probable that the condensation, which was likely to be considerable in the first chapter, becomes less so now, before passing from the one portion to the other; hence either the translator or some other added the note which is contained in Dan_1:21. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. The Greek versions and the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis omit the name "Nebuchadnezzar," either as nominative or as genitive. The Peshitta follows the order of the Massoretic text. The omission does not alter the sense; possibly the proper names thus came in close juxtaposition in the Massoretic in consequence of an endeavour to condense by omission, without making any further change. It would seem that the LXX. had read ðÄ÷ÀøÈà (niq'ra) instead of çìí (ḥ). The rendering is, "It happened ( συνέβη ) that the king fell into dreams and visions." This awkward sentence seems to be the result of a difficulty and consequent slavish following of the text before the translator; it is difficult to imagine what the reading could be which could be translated as it is in the Septuagint, and vet was not totally unlike the Massoretic text. "Dreams and visions" is the evident result of a coalescence of two renderings of çÂìîåÉú (ḥ). It is to be observed that it is "dreams" that Nebuchadnezzar had, and yet only one "dream" is spoken of. Kliefeth thinks this refers merely to the class, so that "dreamed dreams' is equivalent to "was dreaming." Agreeing with this is Havernick. Jephet-ibn-Ali take the plurality to refer to the contents of the dream—that it refers to the four world kingdoms and that of Israel (so Kranichfe;d and Keil); for a similar use of plural for singular, he refers to Gen_37:8. Moses Stuart thinks that it is implied that the dream was repeated. It seems to be somewhat of a mannerism of Daniel to use plural for singular, as the "visions of the head" of Dan_4:1-37. Wherewith his spirit was troubled. The same phrase occurs in regard to Pharaoh (Gen_41:8), when he had dreamed of the seven kine and seven ears of corn. The similarity of the thing to be stated might easily lead to a similarity of statement, without there being any necessary copying. If, as we believe, this portion of Daniel had an Aramaic original, the resemblance in language to Genesis proves very little. In this case also the reading of the Septuagint is different. Instead of øåÌçåÉ (ruḥ), "his spirit," the translators must have had áÈçÂìåÉí ἐν τῷ ἐνυπνίῳ ; also instead of the feminine úÄÌúÀôÇéÄí (tith'pa‛), the reading must have been éÄúÀôÇòÆí (yith'pa‛). Though yod and tan are not readily confused, nun and tan in the older script are, and in Eastern Aramaic nun is the preformative of the third person imperfect, and a change may have been made in translating from the Aramaic. Professor Fuller, following Saadia, makes too much of the fact that, while in the present case the conjugation used is the hithpael, in Genesis it is niphal, since the niphal conjugation occurs in verse 3. Kranichfeld holds that the "hithpael heightens the idea lying in the niphal." In Biblical Aramaic hithpael takes the place of the Hebrew niphal. And his sleep brake from him. While the meaning here is plain, the words are used in an unusual sense; the word here translated "brake from" is the passive of the verb "to be," in this precise sense only used here. The fact that the substantive verb in Eastern Aramaic has this significance indicates that this is a case where the Syriac original shines through the translation. This is all the more obvious when we remember that in Eastern Aramaic ð (nun) was in the pre-formative. Analogous to this is the Latin use of the perfect of the substantive verb, e.g. funimus Troes; comp. Rom_6:17," God be thanked that ye were ( ἦτε ) the servants of sin." As we have said, the meaning of this verse is perfectly clear, and although there are differences of reading, there are none theft affect the sense. "In the second (or third) year of his reign, Nebuchaduezzar had a dream." To us in the West, living in the nineteenth century after Christ, it seems puerile to date so carefully a dream, of all things; but in the East, six hundred years before Christ, dreams had a very different importance from what they have now. In the history of Asshur-baui-pal dreams play a great part. Gyges submits to him in consequence of a dream In consequence of a dream Urdamane (Nut-mi-ammon) invades Egypt. Again and again is Asshur-bald-pal encouraged by dreams which appear to seers. It is ignorance of this that makes Hitzig declare, "The character of the king as here represented to us has no verisimilitude." Although Heredotus does make dreams prominent in his history, we could not imagine any of the diadochi recording and dating his dreams as does Asshur-bani-pal.

Dan_2:2

Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. The Septuagint renders, "And the king commended that the magicians, astrologers, and sorcerers of the Chaldeans be brought in to tell the king his dream. And they came and steed before the king." The difference is slight verbally, but very important. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree closely with the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders mecashepheem, "sorcerers," malefici, "evil workers." Then the king commanded to call the magicians. The scene seems to stand out before us—the king, excited and sleepless, calling out to his attendants to summon to his presence all the wise men in the capital of his empire. The first that are named are the ḥ. The name is derived by Gesenius from çÆøÆè (ḥ), "a stylus," and he supposes them to be sacred scribes. We find the word in Gen_41:24. Although the order may have existed among the Egyptians, the name given to them here and in Exodus may quite well have a Semitic origin. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show us how well the language of Assyria was known in Egypt. Hitzig is quite sure that Nebuchadnezzar "est Abbild des Pharao und zugleich Vorbild des Antiochus Epiphanes." It is a way critics have; they are always quite sure. It may be observed that both the Greek versions have for this word ἐπαοιδούς , "those who use incantations." The Peshitta has harasha, primarily "one who is silent," then "one who mutters," then "one who sings an incantation." Paulus Tellensis has leḥ, "to whisper," and then "to reheat a charm" or "incautation." Jerome renders arioli," foretellers." While the Peshitta interprets ḥ in Genesis by the same word as that used here, in the Septuagint the word in Genesis is ἐξηγητής instead of ἐπαοίδος , and Jerome uses conjectores instead of, as we have seen, arioli In Exo_7:11 ḥ is translated in the Septuagint ἐπαοιδοί . Jerome renders ipsi, as if the word had not been in his text. if, then, the word ḥ stood in the text of Daniel when the Greek versions were made, there was an uncertainty as to the meaning to be assigned to it in Egypt. The distinction between the two meanings drawn from the etymology of the word ḥ, and that derived from the Greek equivalent, is not great. The religion of the Chaldeans was largely a system of incantations that were preserved primarily in the Accadian—a tongue known only to the sacred scribes. Many of the formulae are translated into Assyrian—a language, by the time of Nebuchadnezzar, practically as much restricted to the scribes and learned class as the Accadian. Hence only a scribe could know the proper words to use in an incantation, only he could perpetuate and preserve them. It is difficult to know on what grouted the translators of the Authorized Version selected the word "magicians." The Geneva Bible rendered it "enchanters," which is adopted by the Revisers. Luther is further afield in tendering sternsehers. The name is Assyrian, and apparently derived from ḥ, "a staff" (Norris, 'Assyr. Dict.'). This staff was possibly used, as the staff of the Roman augur, to mark off the regions of the heavens, or, it may be, to ward off demons. And the astrologers. The Hebrew word used hero is ashshapheem. "In Assyrian the word asep or asipu is used in the sense of diviner. The word was actually borrowed by the Aramaic of Daniel under the form of ashshaph". It is supposed to mean "one who uses enchantments." It is not Hebrew, but really Syriac or Eastern Aramaic. In both Greek versions the equivalent is μάγοι , which Jerome follows. The Peshitta reserves magoeha for the next term. The assertion that this word was really the Greek σοφοί is now abandoned. The Greek σ never rendered by ùÑ , which represented a sound not present in Greek at all. The fact that this non-Hellenic sound is doubled makes it utterly impossible that this word could be brought over from the Greek. It is impossible to assign to this word the precise shade of meaning which belongs to it. There is nothing to suggest "astrologers" in the root of the word. And the sorcerers. The Hebrew here is mekashshepheem. Dr. Robertson Smith, as quoted in Professor Bevan, suggests that the word is derived from ëùó , "to shred or cut to pieces," hence "to prepare magical drugs." This is in agreement with the Greek versions, which render φαρμάκοι . The verb, however, is a Syrian one, and means "to worship" (Act_4:31; Php_1:4). It occurs in the Hebrew of Exo_7:11 along with ḥ; in Deu_18:10, in a verse forbidding to the Israelites the use of magical arts; in 2Ch_33:6, in an account of how Manasseh traversed that law. It may be noted that in this last verse the Peshitta renders Chaldea "Chaldeans." Again we have to repeat the remark that we do not know the distinctions involved in these different names. And the Chaldeans. The Hebrew word here is ëÇùÀÒãÄéí (Kas'deem); both the form Kassatu and Kaldu occur in inscriptions. The meaning of this word has caused great discussion, and its use in this chapter for a class of magicians has been held as a strong proof that the writer of the book before us lived long after the time in which he places the events he narrates. The use of "Chaldean" for "magician," "astrologer," or "soothsayer" in classic times is well known. The difficulty here is that the name "Chaldean" is used for a particular and limited class in the nation, and at the same time for that nation as a whole. This is not necessarily impossible. In Scotland, although the inhabitants are all called Scots, there is also the clan whose surname is Scott, or, as it was earlier spelt, "Scot." It would not show confusion or iguorance did a writer of the fifteenth century speak in one page of the Kers, the Hepburns, and the Scots (Scotts) as forming one army, and then in the next page proceed to speak of the whole army as the army of the Scots. His use of the name in the one case for the nation and the other for the clan, so far from showing an insufficient acquaintance with the constitution of Scotland, or the history of its affairs, really evidences the accuracy of the writer's knowledge. We cannot conclude that the author therefore made a mistake in speaking—if he does so—of a class of the Babylonian magians being called Chaldeans because the nation bore the same name. We certainly have as yet found no trace of such a usage, but the argumentum e silentio is of strikingly little value in regard to Babylon—her annals are so very incomplete. We retest bear in mind that the text of Daniel is in a very bad state: it has been subjected to various inter-polstions and alterations. It is, therefore, hazardous to rest any stress on single words. It is clear the writer knew perfectly well that the nation were called Chaldeans. According to the Massoretic text, Dan_5:30 asserts, "In that night was Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans slain;" according to the LXX. version of the same verse it is, "And the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans and given to the Medea and Persians." If we are sure the writer did make the Chaldeans also a class of magians, the probability is that he knew what he was talking about, and made no explanation because, as a contemporary, he took for granted everybody knew how this was. But is it absolutely certain that the writer of Daniel does make this asset-lion? It is true that in the Massoretic text the Kasdeem are represented as a class of magiaas coordinate with the ḥ, ashshapheem, and mekashshepheem, but in the Septuagint we find the word χαλδαίων in the genitive. Consequently, the sentence reads, "the magicians and the astrologers and the sorcerers of the Chaldeans." If at the time the Massoretic recension was made the name "Chaldean" had gained its later significance of "soothsayer," one can easily understand how natural it would be to insert the copulative before the preposition. The construction of the sentence in the text before the translator of the LXX. Version is certainly irregular, but not unexampled. It is not so easy to imagine the Septuagint translator changing the nominative plural into a genitive, especially when, by the time the translation was made, the osage we have spoken of above was in full force. We may assume, then, that in the original text of Daniel the "Kasdeem" were not spoken of, in this verse at all events, as a class of magicians. As the clause appears in the LXX; Nebuchadnezzar assembled all the magicians of his nationality, the Chaldeans as distinguished from the Babylonians. Perhaps he had more confidence in them. While the change we have suggested would make only the mekashshepheem connected with the Chaldeans, the grammatical structure of the verse has the aspect of a freer rendering than that in Theodotion' hence it might quite well have been that the original Hebrew had the meaning represented by the Greek of the Septuagint. Lenormant sees in the four classes here an exact representation of the four classes of Babylonian soothsayers. We do not feel obliged to maintain that all the different classes should be called in on the occasion of this dream. We do not know precisely the characteristics that separated one class from the other, but it seems little likely that they all devoted themselves to the interpretation of dreams. There were other omens and portents that had to be explained. For to show the king his dreams. The natural sense is that represented by the Greek versions, "to tell the king his dream." The usual reason for these officials being called was to declare to the king the interpretation of the dream; but here it was to declare the dream its. If. Yet if they could foretell the future, could they not much more easily tell what had happened? They professed to know what was coming; they could—so Nebuchadnezzar might argue—readily enough reason back from the future they knew to the sign of the future, the dream which had been given to him. So they came and stood before the king. We can imagine the long ranks of the principal classes of Chaldean soothsayers in Babylon hastening into the royal presence. All the soothsayers, we see, were not summoned, for Daniel and his friends were not, and they were not singular, else the writer would have given some reason for this omission. The writer assumes that his readers know so much about the habits of Bah;Ionian wise men and their schools, as to be aware that certain individuals might nominally be summoned to the court; and yet it might be some time before they were summoned on any critical occasion. The absence of the four Hebrews might be explained in two ways: either only the Chaldean magicians were in this case summoned, and, as Daniel and his friends were not Chaldeans, they were omitted; or they were not summoned he-cause their training was not yet complete.

Dan_2:3

And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. The Revised Version improves the English of the verse by putting the verb in the present, "My Spirit is troubled to know the dream." The Septuagint Version has the appearance of a paraphrase, "And the king said to them, I have seen a dream, and my spirit is troubled, and I desire to understand the dream." It is an unusual combination "to see a dream;" from its unusualness the reading of the Septuagint is to be preferred. In old Hebrew ì (l) and æ (z) are not unlike each other, nor are (m) and é (y). Yet these two, letters are the only differences between halamti, "I have dreamed." and hazithi. "I have seen." The Peshitta has haloma hazith, which gives the same combination, and would indicate that here too the Aramaic original is shining through It is however, difficult to see how such a word as ahpatz. "I wish," could drop out of the Massoretic. The must natural solution is that the translator added θέλω to complete the sense. Certainly a link is awanting as it stands in the ordinary interpretation of this verse. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, while the Vulgate paraphrases the last clause, "And the king said to them. I have seen a dream, and confused in mind I have forgot what I saw." The king has been perturbed by the dream, and his perturbation leads him to wish to knew the dream—not necessarily what the dream actually had been, but what it meant. Thus in Dan_1:17 Daniel had understanding "in all visions and dreams;" this meant that he knew the meaning of dreams and visit us. The other versions give us no assistance to explain this. Archdeacon Rose says, "The king here plainly intimates that, though the dream had troubled and perplexed him. he could not remember what it was." It does not appear to us quite so plain It is certainly not impossible to imagine that, while the king had been strongly affected by the dream, he might not remember distinctly what it was. If, however, he had no remembrance of the dream, and only the feeling of perturbation, any grandiose vision might have been brought before him, and he would not have been able to check it, or say that was not the dream he had had. If, again, he had some fragmentary remembrance, he naturally would have told what he remembered, in order that they might reconstruct his dream for him. Nebuchadnezzar's great purpose is not merely to see again his dream, but really to test these soothsayers that promised so much. If they could with such certainty as they professed tell what was about to happen, surely it was no great demand that they should know this dream of his. The king seems merely to have made the general statement, and left the soothsayers to tell at once the dream and interpretation. There sits the king with troubled brow, and there stand before him the principal adepts at interpretation of dreams. Some have found it a difficulty that God should reveal the future to a heathen monarch. But in the parallel case of Pharaoh this occurred; certainly the future revealed to him was the immediate future of the, land he ruled, whereas the dream of Nebuchadnezzar extended in its revelation to the very end of time. Archdeacon Rose refers to Pilate's wife and her mysterious dream at the trial of our Lord. The revelation as given to Nebuchadnezzar served a double purpose—it gave emphasis to it when, not an obscure Hebrew scholar got the vision, but the great conqueror; further, it gave an occasion for bringing Daniel into prominence, and gave thus to trim and to his companions an opportunity of showing their fidelity to God. This gave an occasion for miracles, the effect of which was to strengthen the Jews in their faith.

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 show the interpretation. The versions do not imply any important difference Then … the Chaldeans. This does not mean merely that cue class of soothsayers—a class the existence of which is doubtful—nor that the whole baud of soothsayers bore the name "Chaldeans." The name is simply the name of the nation, but is here used of this small portion of it that were soothsayers, in the same way as in Joh_9:22 "Jews," the name of the nation, is used for the rulers: "For the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." Hence it is needless to speak of' the Chaldeans being the principal class, and therefore "for the sake of breviloquence" (Moses Stuart) "put for the whole." So also Kliefoth, "Because the Chaldeans were the first class, they alone are named." The Chaldeans were not the inhabitants of Babylonia, but belonged to several cantons south and east of Babylon. Spake. The word yedabberu is usually followed by the verb amar in the infinitive. In Eze_40:4 we have the verb dibber used without arnar, to introduce the thing said. It is not improbable that in this instance Aramith, "in the Syriac tongue," helped to the omission of amar. In the Syriack (Aramith). All scholars know now that there are two leading dialects of the Aramaean or Aramaic—the Eastern or Syriac, and the Western or Chaldee. The terms are very confusing; as Syria was certainly to the west of Chaldea, it seems strange that the usage should ever have sprung up to call the Western variety Chaldee, and the Eastern variety Syriac. The usage having been established, it has a certain convenience to be able to name all the Western, or, as they may be called, Palestinian dialects of Aramaic Chaldee, and all the Eastern varieties Syriac. While the English version uses the term "Syriac," as the portion of Daniel which follows has come down to us, it is not written in Syriac, but in Chaldee. We shall, however, endeavour to show that this is due to changes introduced by transcribers. As to the word Aramith occurring here, there is great force in the view maintained by Lenormant, that it is to be regarded as a note to the reader, indicating that st this point the Hebrew ceases and the Aramaic begins. The reason of the change from one language to another has been already dealt with in considering the question of the structure of Daniel. In the mean time it is sufficient to say that our theory is that the Hebrew in the beginning of Daniel is due to the editor, who collected the scattered fly-leaves. In the first chapter and in the three opening verses of that before us, we have the results of translation and condensation. As the previous sacred books had been written in Hebrew—the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not to speak of other books—it was natural that the editor, especially if he were under the influence of Ezra, would desire to see a book that had so much of holy hope and aspiration about it, in the sacred language of the patriarchs and prophets. There would be probably a considerable mass of irregular material to be gone over before a connected account could be given of the early days of Daniel. These sources would be necessarily in the main Aramaic, and hence the translation and condensation. It was formerly one of the objections urged against Daniel that the author regarded Aramaic as the language spoken in Babylon. By this time the language engraved on the tablets had been discovered not to be any previously known toungue. It is now found that, although the inhabitants of Babylon used the cuneiform for inscriptions, the language of ordinary business and social intercourse was Aramaic. and had been for several centuries. Dr. Hugo Winckler says, in his 'History of Babylonia and Assyria,' p. 179, "Aramaic soon became the language of social intercourse (ungangsprache) in nearly the whole of Mesopotamia, and. expelled the Assyro-Babylonian, which continued only as a literary tongue (schriftsprache)." Bronze weights have been found dating back to the Sargo-nids, with the weight marked on the one side in Aramaic, while on the other the titles of the king are given in Assyrian, When Sennacherib sent Rabshakeh to Jerusalem, Eliakim and Shebna wished the conversation to be carried on in Aramaic, implying that by this time Aramaic had become the ordinary language of diplomacy. The single Aramaic verse in Jeremiah (Jer_10:11) implies that the Jewish captives would be dwelling among a people who ordinarily spoke Aramaic. Some have deduced from the phrase, "then spake," etc; that Aramaic was not the ordinary language of the speakers—a deduction that would be plausible if it had not been that from this point till the end. of the seventh chapter the book is in Aramaic. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that Nebuchadnezzar had first addressed the wise men in some other language, and then betook him to Aramaic. O king, live for ever: tell thy servaats the dream, andl we will show the interpretation. The soothsayers address the king in terms of Oriental adulation. Similar phrases are found in despatches to Asshurbanipal. In the Septuagint Version the phrase is accommodated more to the Hellenic usage, and the king is addressed as κύριε βασιλεῦ . Their language implies that they expected to be told the dream, and then, having been told the dream, they would apply the rules of their art to it, and declare to the king the interpretation.

Dan_2:5

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The version of the LXX. has slight but important differences from the Massoretic text. It is as follows "And the king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if therefore ye do not tell me the dream truly and show me the interpretation thereof, ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the royal treasury." Theodotion renders the last portion of the verse, "ye shall be destroyed ( εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε ), and your houses shall be plundered ( διαρπαγήσονται )." The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, but, like Theodotion, softens the last clause into "plundered." The Vulgate retains the fierceness of the Massoretic, softened merely in phrase, not in meaning. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me. The first thing to be noticed is the difference of the Q'ri and the K'thib in the word "Chaldean;" it is written ëùÒãéà , according to the Syriac usage, not ëùÒãàé according to the Chaldee. As the Book of Daniel was copied and recopied many times, probably at least scores of' times before, on the latest assignable critic d date of Daniel, the Massoretic text was fixed, and copied mainly by those whose language was Western not Eastern Aramaic. the occurrence of Syriac forms is more likely to be survivals from a Syriac original than insertions, either accidental or intentional. When the differences are so slight as those between Eastern and Western Aramaic, the tendency is to remove them rather than to accentuate them. The older interpretation of mill tha, "thing" or "word," was to take it as referring to the dream—that it was the matter that had gone from him. This, however, depends to a large degree on the moaning to be attached to ozda. Is it to be regarded as equivalent to azla, as if it were derived from àÂæÇì , "to go;" or is azda to be regarded as Persian azdu, "sure," "diligent"? Delitzsch suggests azanda. "known." The two Greek versions render, ὁ λόγος ἀπ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη , a phrase which may either be "the word has gone from me," or "the matter has departed from me," the latter being the more natural, from the meaning of ἀφίστημι . The Peshitta rendering is, "Sure is the word I have spoken." The older commentators have mainly taken this sentence as asserting that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream; Calvin. however, does so only because he feels himself compelled to take verse 8 as meaning this; while Jephet-ibn-Ali and others assume this to be the meaning of the phrase. Aben Ezra takes azda as meaning "firm" or sure. Berthohlt, among moderns, maintains that milletha is "the dream." Most others assert the sentence to mean, "The word which has gone forth from me is sure;" this is also Professor Bevan's interpretation. Hitzig's view here is peculiar: he would translate, "For the matter is important to me." This view does not suit verse 8. The lexicons differ in this. Winer first gives elapsus est, abiit, then adds, "unless rather it be derived from the Arabic (see Arabic word, atzad), 'strong,' or from the Rabbinic àÈæÇã , robustus." Buxtorf does give the alleged Rabbinic use of the verb, but gives reference only to occurrence in the passage before us and verse 8, and renders abire. Gesenius renders, "to depart," and quotes in support of this the Rabbinic formula, àæãà ìèöîéí , "to go to one's own opinion," spoken of a rabbi who holds a view not shared by any other. At the same time, Gesenius gives a meaning to the clause as a whole which accords with that of most commentators, "The word has gone out from me." Furst takes the word as meaning "firm," "sure," "unalterable." He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, as if it confirmed his view, which really it does not. Castell gives (see Arabic word) as robur, but appends no reference. Brockelmann does not give it at all, nor does Levy. Had Castell given any reference, it might have been argued to be a survival of a Syriac word through transcription; but we must remain in doubt in this, all the more so that the Peshitta does not transfer the word, which it would naturally have done had the word been extant in Syriac in a.d. 100. This would make it probable that it is an old word. The fact that it is used in Talmudic only in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable to the present passage, confirms the idea of its age. It had probably a technical meaning, denoting that a certain matter was irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the word is by no means certain, though supported by Schrader and Noehleke. It may have a Shemitic root. àææ (azoz) Assyrian, "to be firm," may be the Assyrian form of the word, which becomes àæã in Syriac, and àæãà in status emphatieus. In Aramaic æ of Hebrew becomes , ã as æÈäÇá (zabab) and ãÀäÇá (dehab), "gold." The Assyrian use of sibilants is more akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Sa, "this," is equivalent to æÆä (zeh), Schrader, 'Keiln.,' 586. If àææ were transferred from Assyrian and put in the status emphaticus, àÇæÀãÈà is not an unlikely form for it to assume. Even grant the word to be Persian, it is far from proving, or even rendering it probable, that Daniel was composed in the days of the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian producing much effect on the language of the numerous peoples that were subject to the Persian empire. There is no sign that the word was known in Palestine during the time when the Targums were becoming fixed. In Alexandria, where the Septuagint version of Daniel was made, the meaning of the word was not known, and was thought to be equivalent to àæì (azal). In Asia Minor, where Theodotion made his version, it was unknown. Jerome, who made his version, if not in Palestine, yet under Pales-tinian guidance, translates it also as equivalent to azal. The natural conclusion is that this book must have been composed not later than the Persian period, and not far from the centre of government. As we have already said, our interpretation agrees with that of Professor Bevan; we would render the phrase, "The word which has gone forth from me," i.e; "is fixed." The reason of the king's refusal to tell the wise men his dream is that he cannot do it, net because he has forgotten it, but because he has already announced that he wishes these soothsayers to prove their ability to give the interpretation of the dream by telling him what the dream was which he had had. He has committed himself to that course; he is a king, and he may not change, If ye will not make known to me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be opposed or refused anything, at once determines that it is not inability to tell him what he wishes to know that hinders the soothsayers, but unwillingness. Of course, the abruptness of the action, immediate sentence pronounced on their hesitating to satisfy his demand, seems improbable. We must, however, remember that we have the account given us in the utmost brevity. We have the substance of the dialogue between the king and his astrologers. It is put in dialogue form simply because the Shemitic tongues naturally lend themselves to this mode of presentation. The sentence, "ye shall be cut in pieces," suggests some of the punishments inflicted by Asshurbanipal on those who rebelled against him. In the Aramaic the meaning literally is, "Ye shall be made pieces of." This is considerably softened in both the Greek versions. In the LXX. the rendering is, Παρὰ δειγματισθήσεσθε , "Ye shall be made an example of." Theodotion renders, Εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε , "Ye shall be for destruction." The Peshitta is stronger, if anything, from the succession of words, "Piece piece ye shall be cut." The punishment certainly was horrible, but not more so than the punishment David inflicted on the murderers of Ishbosheth. Indeed, in European countries a century and a half ago punishments yet more revolting were frequent. The punishment for treason in our own country was as horrible as anything well could be. The sentence, however, went further than merely the individuals. And your houses shall be made a dunghill. In the 'Records of the Past,' 1:27, 43, are references to something like this. "houses reduced to heaps of rubbish." That the houses thus made heaps of rubbish should therefore be made dunghills, is in perfect accordance with the manners at present holding in the East. The rendering of the Septuagint is very peculiar here, "And your goods shall be escheat to tire royal treasury ( καὶ ὀναληφθήσεται ὑμῶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα εἰς τὸ βασιλίκον )." This cannot be due to any desire to soften the meaning, for in the first place, in Dan_7:1-28 :29, where the same phrase occurs in the Aramaic, it is paraphrased, but not really changed; it is rendered δημευθήσεται . But further, the meaning here is perfectly different from that in the Aramaic of the Masse,retie recension. Theodotion's rendering is a softening of the Massoretic, "Your houses shall be ( διαρπαγήσονται ) torn down;" but the Septuagint quite changes the meaning. If the translator had a slightly blurred copy before him, he might read ðæìå instead of ðåìé ; that is to say, instead of "a dunghill," he read it as the third person plural pael of the verb àÂæÇìÇ (azal), "to go." When written in Sama-titan characters, or in old Phoenican characters, the last word would not be unlike ìîìêÀ , "to the king." This is the only explanation of this variation that seems feasible, and it implies that the manuscript before the Septuagint translator was written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. The pre-formative , ð used as the sign of the third person, is the peculiarity of Eastern Aramaic. The translator must have bad this generally before him in his manuscript, or he never could have made this mistake. This is another indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was originally not Chaldee, but Syriac. We can imagine the striking scene: on the one wide the haughty young conqueror, blazing in indignation at the obstinate refusal, as he counts it, of his soothsayers and augurs to tell him his dream and the meaning of it; on the other, the crouching crowd of magicians, astrologers, and oneiromantists, dispirited and nonplussed. Brought up in an absolute faith in astrology and augury, the king never doubted their ability to tell him his dream; it could only be a treasonable desire to hinder him from taking the suitable steps to avoid whatever danger might be threatened by it, or to gain whatever advantage might be promised. They would not tell him the dream, because by their rules the interpretation would be fixed, and from that they could I not escape. The king will not and cannot reverse his word, and they cannot tell him what he desires, and so they stand facing each other.

Dan_2:6

But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The Septuagint Version is "If ye will show me the dream, and tell me its interpretation, ye shall receive every sort ( παντοῖα ) of gifts, and be honoured by me: show me the dream, and judge." There are indications of differences in the text, which are considered below. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in its rendering of this verse. The Peshitta also manifests no serious difference. All these older versions render it doubtful whether nebizba was part of the original text. But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour. Ewald would conjoin with this verse the latter part of the verse preceding, with considerable justification. Like the latter part of the previous verse, it is to be taken as the summation of a long argument, in which threats anti promises would bear a large part, probably both heightening as they failed to produce tire effect required of making the soothsayers reproduce to Nebuchadnezzar his dream. Now the acme is reached—on the one hand, a death of torture and infamy is threatened; on the other band, in the verse before us, "gifts, rewards, and great honour." The king is eager to have his dream interpreted, but he has taken his stand—before he will listen to the interpretation, they must afford him evidence that they can interpret correctly this dream, by reproducing it to him. One of the words here has been used by Berthohlt as evidence that the Book of Daniel originated in the days of the Maccabees, when Greek was largely spoken. The word translated "reward" in our version is nebizba; this, it was argued by Bertholdt, is νόμισμα , m becoming b—a not infrequent commutation. In support of this, if we take νόμισμα as meaning "coined money," this would make a distinction between this word and matnan, the more ordinary word for "a gift." Jephet-ibn-Ali translates in accordance with this meaning: "I will give you raiment and dinars," he makes Nebuchadnezzar say. Yet this view is now abandoned by all critics, and however many alleged Greek words are found in Daniel, this is never now brought forward as one of them. Lexicographers are practically unanimous in rejecting this derivation. There are two other derivations, one making it a palpel form of the áÀåæ with a ð pre-formative which was Gesenius's view in his 'Thesaurus.' He later abandoned this view, and maintained that it was connected with some Persian root. Winer maintains the former of these views, and Furst the latter. As a Persian word, it is supposed to prove the late date of Daniel. It does seem somewhat strange logic to argue, from the presence of Persian words in a document, that therefore it was written late in the Greek period. The prior question presents itself—Is the word Persian, Greek, or Aramaic, really a part of the original text of Daniel? In regard to this the Septuagint Version is of importance. Its rendering of this clause is, as we have seen, "But if ye shall show me the dream, and tell me the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive all manner of gifts, and shall be honoured by me." This interpretation implies a different text—the word nebizba disappears from the text altogether, for no one would translate it παντοῖα ; evidently the translator had before him some combination of col, "all." The combination matnan nebizba occurs in the Targum in Jer_40:5, therefore, had it been present, the translator would have been aware of its meaning. Theodotion renders it δωρεάς . If the phrase occurred elsewhere, there would easily be a motive to introduce the word nebizba, but there seems none to substitute for it another word altogether; certainly ë and ð are not unfrequently confounded, and a defective ì might be read as a . á It would not be difficult to reproduce a Hebrew sentence, the rendering of which would require παντοῖα . This much is clear—nebizba was not before the Septuagint translator. It is further to be observed that the Septuagint translator has had before him, not the noun yeqar, "honour," but the verb in the passive or ethpael. These, however, are not all the points where the Septuagintal text must have differed from the text we have received from the Massoretes. The adjective sagi," great," occurs in the Authorized Version, but is not represented in the Septuagint. The order of the Greek words suggests a different order in the original Aramaic. Other things being equal, the strutter a reading, the more likely it is to be the original reading. It is clear that this advantage is with the Septuagint reading. If there were any likelihood of certain words being omitted from any probable cause as homoioteleuton, it would be different. On the other hand, the addition of a kind which is frequently seen, the more recent word nebizba is put alongside its more ancient equivalents. In the other case, the adjective sagi, "great," is inserted, as frequently happens, with a view of heightening the effect. Another explanation may be suggested. We know the Aramaic docquets on the back of the contract tablets are written in a script resembling Phoenician characters. If the original manuscripts were written at the date assigned by tradition, then it would be written in this style of letter. In it we find that ù and î were liable to be mistaken, as also â and ; ð we should then have îðé (minni), "from me," as a possible reading which had been misread by some Palestinian scribe into ùÒâé (sagi), "great," and the à added to complete the word. The case is only a familiar case of doublets. When we have further îÄïÎ÷ÈãÈîÈé , "from me," the change of the preceding is thus in a sense necessitated. This may be regarded as an indication of age, as the square character had begun at least a century before Christ.^£ This leaves but little time for modifications and blunders of penmanship between this and the critical date of Daniel. The latter clause of this verse shows us another variation between the Massoretic text and that lying behind the Septuagint. The Massoretic recension is well represented in the Authorized Version. Therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The version of the Septuagint indicates a different reading, and has a different point, "Declare to me the dream, and judge." According to the Massoretic reading, the king merely repeats his demands, the only reference to the preceding promises and threatenings being in the conjunction ìÈäÅï (lā), "therefore." Whereas the main reference of the clause, according to the Septuagint, is to the immediately preceding promises, "Show me the dream, and judge if I will do as I have said." Another supposition possible is that there has been a transposition. In the very next verse çÀåÈä (ḥ) is represented by κρίνω —in that case it may mean "interpret," the rendering then would be, "Show me the dream and interpret," and represent some part of the verb ôùø , only there is the awkwardness of using the same word as equivalent to two different Aramaic words in contiguous verses. The difference is not of great importance; the king is eager to get the magicians to tell him his dream and its interpretation, but, having commenced the experiment as to their powers, he will not allow himself to be driven from it. Before leaving this verse, we must note the presence of certain signs of old date in the Aramaic of the passage. First, the word hen, "if," is not used in the Targums; it is not in Levy's Dictionary; neither Gesenius nor Furst gives any non-Biblical reference for the use of the word In the same way, its derivative ìÈäÅï (lā), "therefore," is equally peculiar to Biblical Aramaic. Particles are good notes of age, as they are less liable to change than nouns substantive.

Dan_2:7

They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. The Septuagint Version here is, "And they answered the second time, saying, O king, tell the dream, and thy servants will judge of these things." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The wise men are unable to satisfy the king's demands. Ewald comments on the fact that none of them had the inventiveness to make up a dream, and tell the king that had been his dream. He admits himself that there might have been risk of the king discovering the deception, if no flash of reviving memory in his mind answered to their invention. On our hypothesis that the king had not forgotten his dream, but was testing their powers,