Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Daniel 3:1 - 3:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE GOLDEN IMAGE, AND THE FIERY FURNACE.
Dan_3:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was three score cubits, and the breadth thereof air cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. The Septuagint Version is full of redundance and interpolation, "In the eighteenth year King Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled cities and countries, and all those dwelling (in them)over the earth from India even to Ethiopia, made a golden image; the height of it was sixty cubits, and the breadth of it six cubits, and set it up in a plain within the boundary of the province of Babylon." The reason for translating Dura "boundary, is natural enough, for the word. means something approximate to this. Theodotion begins in the same way, giving the date "the eighteenth year;" the place is ἐν πεδίῳ Δεειρᾷ , As for the rest, it is in agreement with the text of the Massoretes. The Peshitta follows a text that must have been identical with the Massoretic, as also does the Vulgate. The date inserted into the Greek Version is improbable. At that time, if we take the chronology of 2Ki_25:8, Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in the siege of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was taken in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, after a two years' siege. In Jer_52:29 we are told, however, that Nebuchadnezzar took eight hundred and thirty-two captives in his eighteenth year, and the difference between Babylonian and Jewish chronology suggests that the eighteenth year of Jer_52:1-34. may be the nineteenth of 2Ki_25:1-30 £ Against this is the fact that the month of the year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is given (2Ki_25:8), and this implies the adoption of the Babylonian chronology. It is certainly not to be expected that Nebuchadnezzar would traverse the long distance that separated him from his capital merely to erect a statue or obelisk. At the same time, we are told (Jer_52:29), as we have mentioned above, that in the eighteenth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar took eight hundred and thirty-two persons captive. This may be that he sent these prisoners by a convoy, for it is clear that a larger number of captives were taken when Jerusalem was captured than eight Hundred and thirty-two. They may have been taken during the progress of the siege, in sallies, etc. The number of prisoners taken in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar does not suggest the great numbers that are implied in Ezekiel to be dwelling on the Chebar, otherwise we might be inclined to regard these differences from the received chronology as due to a different mode of reckoning. Even though the date given in Jer_52:29 were the date of the capture of Jerusalem, it is not at all likely that the capture of an obscure city in the hill country of Judaea was an event on account of which a special thanksgiving would be given. The description of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar in the Septuagint is borrowed from Est_1:1. In regard to this image, the statement that it is "golden" does not mean that it was solid gold, any more than the golden altar (Num_4:11) was entirely of gold (Exo_30:1-3; Exo_37:25, Exo_37:26); that it was an "image" (tzelem) does not necessarily imply that it was a statue in the form of a human being. In Eze_16:17 there are references to tzalmee zakar, which seem naturally to be phallus images. Hegel's opinion ('AEsthetik') was that the obelisk was really a modified phallus image. If that is so, then the proportions of this tzele are not extravagant for an obelisk. Moreover, these numbers, "sixty" and "six," are evidently round numbers, their mnemonic character maintaining their place. The real numbers might be anything near the number given; instead of "sixty," the real number might be not much over "fifty" cubits, and the "six" cubits the number given as the breadth, might be, without intentional deception, seven or eight cubits. The proportion, at all events, in the extreme case of fifty and eight cubits, would not be extraordinary, even for a statue. It might be a gilded statue on a lofty column. One other note may be added: 6 and 60, multiplied together, give 360, the number of the days in the Babylonian year. The division of the circle into 360 degrees is probably due to this Babylonian division of the year. In the plain of Dura. There are several places in Babylonia which may be identified with this. While it may be outside the wall of the city, this Dura may also have been within it; the Septuagint rendering favours thistly— ἐν πεδίῳ περιβόλου , It is remarked by Professor Fuller that districts within the city of Babylon have at times "Dun" as part of the name. Thus, "in Esarhaddon's inscriptions, Duru-suanna-ki is that part of Babylon which is elsewhere called Imgur-Bel, or wall of Babylon." This would confirm the view—Quatremere's—that Duru was within the city wall. Archdeacon Rose ('Speaker's Commentary,' ad loc.) refers to Oppert as having found near a spot named Duair the pedestal of a colossal statue, but gives no reference. On the fiat plains of Mesopotamia, this obelisk of a hundred feet high would be seen for nearly thirteen miles in every direction, and the gleam from its gilded top would be visible even further. What was the occasion of this image being set up? We have no means of even conjecturing. Certainly it was not merely to seduce the Jews again into idolatry. From the way Marduk (Merodach) is glorified in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, the probability is that it was erected in his honour. Bishop Wordsworth ('Com. Daniel') thinks the statue was of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and quotes Lenormant ('Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne,' 1:237, trans, 1:486). Lenormaut, in the passage referred to, quotes an ins,,ription in which Nebuchadnezzar calls himself "the begotten of Marduk" From this Lenormant comes to the conclusion that, like Caligula in later times, Nebuchadnezzar demanded worship to be given to himself as a god. But when we turn back in this same book, we find a number of statements of a similar kind which invalidate the emphasis which Lenormant would give to this. He calls Bilit Larpanit, "the mother who bore me;" Sin, "who inspires me with judgment;" Shamash, "who inspires my body with the sentiment of justice:" and so on. In saying he was begotten of Marduk, it is not as claiming the personal possession of the characteristics of divinity that Nebuchadnezzar made this statement, but as regarding himself to be the special instrument and favourite of the gods—a posture of mind quite compatible with the deepest and most real humility. Hippolytus and Jerome maintain the same view as Lenormant on a priori evidence. There is no contradiction between Nebuchadnezzar's ascription of praise to Jehovah as a God of gods and a Revealer of secrets, in Dan_2:47, and his erection of this image to Merodaeh That Jehovah was a God of gods did not prevent Merodach being that also, and even greater.
Dan_3:2, Dan_3:3
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The Septuagint is greatly interpolated, "And Nebuchadnezzar, king of kings and ruler ( κυριεύων ) of the whole inhabited earth ( τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης ), sent to gather together all nations, peoples, and tongues, governors and generals, rulers and overseers, executors and those in authority, according to their provinces, and all in the whole inhabited earth, to come to the dedication of the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up" The word denoting the "inhabited world" is one used first of the Greek world (Funeral Oration of Demosthenes, Τῆς οἰκομενῆς τὸ πλεῖστον μέρος , then of the Roman world as distinct from the barbarian (Polybius, 1.4. 6, Τὸ τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης σχῆμα ); in this latter sense it is used in Luk_2:1. The phrase, "nations. peoples, and tongues," is one that occurs with great frequency in Revelation, and also the above phrase, τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης . This is an indication of the use made by the Apostle John of this version of Daniel as distinct from the Massoretic text It may also be observed that the phrase, "all in the whole inhabited earth," is placed as equal to "all the rulers of the provinces," which makes it at least possible that a misreading of the original text has occasioned the exaggeration in this particular clause. In the third verse the order is different, and to some extent the names of the officials are different also; σατράπαι is left out, and τύραννοι appears in its stead, though not in the same place. Further, there are persons mentioned "great in authority." This variation may be due to an uncertainty in the mind of the translator as to the exact equivalent in Greek for the Aramaic terms. It is to be noted that "the inhabitants of the whole earth" disappear from this repetition. The last editor of the Greek text may have had two renderings before him, and drew from the one the second verse, and from the other the third. Theodotion's rendering, while in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, yet differs from it to some extent, appearing to make the latter half of verse 2 explanatory of the former, which contains the more technical designations. In verse 3 there is a change in the order of the terms, as to some extent a change in the terms. In the Peshitta there are evident traces that the translator had not understood the technical meaning of the terms here used. The list given is "great men of might—lords, rulers, Agardaei, Garabdaei, Tarabdaei, Tabathaei, and all the rulers of the province." These mysterious names, that seem those of tribes, have no existence elsewhere. It is singular that these words, if they are in their original shape—which they seem certainly, to be—and to appearance of Persian origin, were unintelligible to one writing on the Persian frontier at most three centuries after the critical date of Daniel. The Parthian Empire retained much of the Persian character. How was it that words of Persian meaning had disappeared there, and still remained in use, or at least still continued to be intelligible, in Palastine? The probability is that the names have undergone so great change in course of transcription that their original form can no longer be recognized. The Vulgate does not call for remark. The names of these different grades of officials are (as we now have them) some indubitably Persian, as ahashdarpan; others unmistakably Assyrian, sagan pehah; and there are some that have no recognized etymology, as tiphtaye: but there are none that are even plausibly derived from Greek. Yet this class of words is precisely the class where the influence of the language of the military governing nation would be manifest. The fact that while the Massoretic text has eight classes of rulers who are summoned, the Septuagint has only six, throws a suspicion on the whole list. The LXX; however, adds, "all those in the whole earth ( πάντας τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην )," which may be the result of misreading of kol shiltoni medeenatha, or it may be a rendering of it, referring back to the classes already enumerated ( ἄρχοντας being understood, omitting the ray). In Theodotion and Jerome there are seven classes. Only in the Peshitta are there the same number of classes as in the Massoretic. The Peshitta has as this first class rabai ḥ', used in the New Testament, e.g. Luk_22:4, of "chief captains." It is possible that rabuti, or some derivative from it, was in the original text here, and this was changed into the better known satrap. Sagan does not call for remark; as said above (Dan_2:48), it is derived from shakun (Assyrian); the Hebrew equivalent appears in Jer_51:23 and Eze_23:6, and elsewhere. Peḥ is also Assyrian in origin, also elsewhere used in Scripture. Adargazrayya seems a compound from adar and gazar, "to divide." Furst would make this word mean" astrologers of the god Adar." Professor Bevan would derive it from endarzgar, a Persian word meaning "counsellor"—"a word which was still in use under the Sassanians." That the word had any connection with this is disproved by the fact that in the Peshitta it is rendered Agardaei. If the word in question had survived from the Achaemenids to the Sassanids, its meaning would necessarily be known to the Peshitta translator, whose date held between the periods of these two Persian dynasties. A Persian word of the date of the Achsemenids to have survived to the age of the Sassanids, must have been known in the intervening Parthian period. A similar difficulty occurs in regard to the next word, gedabrayya—the Syrian translator has simply transferred it. The simplest interpretation is that it is a variation on gizbarayya (Ezr_7:21), and means "treasurers," which is still in use in the Syriac of the Peshitta, e.g. 2Ki_10:22. The question is complicated by the fact that the word which occupies the same place in the similar list in 2Ki_10:27 is haddabrā When we turn to the Peshitta for that verse, there is another word, raurbona. The Septuagint, by rendering φίλοις , shows that their reading was ḥ. All this proves how utterly futile it is to build anything on the presence of late words in Daniel. The presence of early words from the nature of the case, is more significant. Old and unintelligible words would never be inserted in place of new and intelligible, though the reverse process might readily take place: ãÀÌúÈáÀÌøÇéÌà (dethaberayyā) is rendered usually "judges," and is generally derived from the Pehlevi; but if ãÇú (dath) means a "firman," a "command," or "decree," in Aramaic, then the addition bar in Persian is rendered less certain. Here, again, the Peshitta translator was unaware of the meaning of the word, and renders by the mysterious word tarabdaei. The last class mentioned is the Tiphtaē. This term seems to be omitted in the three Western versions at least there are only six names of ranks of rulers given in these versions, and this is a seventh. Of course, it may be that some name earlier in the list is explanatory and added later than the time when these versions were made. The Peshitta has the word Tabathaei, which has all the appearance of a national name. The word Tiphtaē assumes in the K'thib a Syriac form, which, as we before remarked, is an indication of the original dialect of the book. Notwithstanding what Professor Bevan has asserted, something may be said for the conjecture that it is connected with aftā, "to advise." But in the extreme doubt in which we are in regard to what the text precisely is, it is something like waste of time to do more than chronicle opinions. This feeling of uncertainty is increased by the fact that, as above mentioned, the two lists in the two verses before us do not agree in the three Western versions. The list in verse 27 purports to be the same as that given here, and differs from it greatly. All that we may assume is that there were assembled different classes of the officials of the Babylonian Empire. The reading should not be medeenatha, "of the provinces;" but medeenta "of the province;" the officials that were assembled were those merely of the province of Babylon. We would maintain this, although the versions are against it, because there would be no difference in the original unpointed text.
Dan_3:4, Dan_3:5
Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up. The Septuagint rendering is, "And the herald proclaimed to the multitudes, To you it is announced, peoples and countries, nations and tongues, when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, the pipe, the harp, the sackbut, and psaltery, of chorus, and of all kinds of music, that ye fall down and worship the golden image which King Nebuchadnezzar set up." It is clear that the Septuagint translator rendered çéì as "host," and translated áÀ as if it were ìÀ . The balanced cadence of the next clause seems more natural, if due to the Aramaic source than to the Greek translator. The musical instruments are also arranged in the same cadenced fashion, broken to some extent by συμφωνία . Theodotion is, as usual, in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, but omits συμφωνία . The Peshitta in the fourth verse agrees not only word for word, but we might almost say syllable for syllable, with the Massoretic text. In the fifth verse it omits pesanterin; instead of sabka, it has kinora, which is usually regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of κιθάρα ; instead of συμφωνία , it has tziphonia, which suggests a different etymology. It is true Strack ('Neu Hebraische Sprache') points out that ñ has a tendency to become ö before syllables with the ã sound or at the end of words, but this is neither of these; the syllable with ö is the first, not the last, and there is no d or t sound in the word. Jerome is in strict verbal agreement with the Massoretic text. We shall have to devote a short excursus to the names of the musical instruments which occur here. In eagerness to find proofs of the late origin of the Book of Daniel—of its origin in the times of the Hellenic domination, karoza was derived from κήρυξ , that etymology is universally abandoned now. O people, nations, and languages. It ought rather to be peoples. Bishop Wordsworth remarks on the resemblance which this phrase bears to tsar used of the mystical Babylon in Revelation (Rev_13:7; Rev_17:15), and adds that she also "commands them to fall down and worship the image which she has set up." In regard to the following verse, the sculptures of Nineveh prove the prominence given to music in all important occasions, as the celebration of a triumph or the dedication of a temple. The names of the musical instruments are not so generally preserved. It was most likely when the rays of the morning sun smote the golden tip of the obelisk, that there came the burst of music which was to serve as a signal for all the multitudes to fall down and worship. The image was looked upon as the sign of the god it represented; it received the worship meant for him.
Dan_3:6
And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. The only difference between the Septuagint and the Massoretic text is that instead of rendering, "shall be cast," it is put in the plural active, "they shall cast him." There may have been a difference of reading— éÄøÀîåðÅä instead of éÄúÀøÀîÅà . It is, perhaps, more probable that it is simply that the translator preferred this construction to the one which would have resulted from a more literal translation. Theodotion,the Peshitta, and Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. In that very hour. It has been suggested by Professor Fuller that the way the shadow fell would enable them to fix the hour. This, however, is giving an exact astronomical meaning to what had only a rhetorical significance. The word sha‛ is very vague; it means "time" in general, it means "any short interval of time," from some days to a moment. Shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. The word àÇúÌåÌï is of uncertain derivation; it is found in both dialects of Aramaic. It occurs in the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan, in the story of the death of Haran and the preservation of Abraham, which seems distinctly imitated from the events related here. In Smith's 'Life of Asshurbanipal,' we find this punishment more than once resorted to, e.g. pp. 163, 164. Professor Bevan maintains, in answer to Lenormant's appeal to this as a proof of the author's accurate knowledge of Babylonian methods of punishment, that this is derived from Jer_29:22, Zedekiah and Ahab, "whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire." Only the action implied by the verb ÷ÈìÈä (qalah) is not complete burning, as that implied in the punishment before us, but rather the more cruel torture of slowly burning The word is used of "parched corn" (Le Jer_2:14; Jdg_5:11); it is used also of the heat of fever (Psa_38:8). There is no verbal indication that the author of Daniel was at all influenced by this passage.
Dan_3:7
Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. The Septuagint renders, "And at that time, when all the nations (Gentiles) heard the sound of the trumpet, the pipe and harp, sackbut and psaltery, and every sound of music, then all the nations (Gentiles), tribes, and tongues, fell down and worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up." The last words, κατέναντυ τουτοῦ evidently belong to the beginning of the next verse. It is possible ἤχου is due to another reading, but may also have been the result of a desire for variation. Theodotion does not differ from the Massoretic text The two Greek versions agree with the Massoretic in omitting συμφωνία . The rendering of the Peshitta is, "In the hour when the nations heard the voice of the horn, and flute, and lyre, (qithra), and harp (kinnor), and pipe (tziphonia), and all kinds of music, all these peoples, nations, and tongues, fell down and worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up" It is to be noted that kinnor, its Shemitic equivalent, here again follows qithra, and that pesanterin is again omitted. Jerome, in opposition to the Massoretic and the Greek versions, inserts symphonia. In regard to the Massoretic text here, as in the fifth verse, we have qathros instead of the qithros of the K'thib; in this, the K'thib agrees, as generally, with the Eastern instead of the Western form the word assumes. Professor Bevan compares the use of ëÀÌãÄé here with that in the Palmyrene inscriptions (Vogue 15). Zemara is said by Keil to refer only to song; but Furst, Gesenius, and Wirier apply the word to instrumental music. It may, as a matter of fact, be either; if it be a chorus of voices, it is then equivalent to συμφωνία . This verse simply chronicles the obedience that was at once and unquestioningly rendered to the command of Nebuchadnezzar. The obedience of these Gentiles served to bring out into clearer relief the steadfastness of these Jews, or, what appears to the king and his courtiers, their obstinacy. Not impossibly, their resistance to the king was emphasized by their remaining standing amid the crowd of those prostrate officials.
Dan_3:8
Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. The Septuagint is in this verse closer to the Massoretic than is Theodotion. The latter has nothing to represent the ëÈìÎ÷ÁáÅì ãÀðÈä (kol-qobayl d'nah) of the original, which appears in our versions as "wherefore." The Septuagint renders κατέναντι τούτου . The Peshitta also has omitted "wherefore;" in the next clause it is slavishly accurate, giving the peculiar turn of the phrase in the original, 'achalu qartzchū, "to devour pieces of them." It occurs in the Syriac of Luk_16:1; it is in the Targum of Psa_15:3. The Vulgate presents no points worthy of notice. It is evident that "Chaldean" is here used in its ethnic sense of the nation, not in its professional sense as of the alleged class. We must remember that "Chaldean" is not equivalent to "Babylonian." As we have seen, the Chaldeans were intruders in Babylon, and to them Nebuchadnezzar belonged. It was but natural that native-born Chaldeans, who reckoned themselves to be of the same kin as the king, objected to have their rights postponed to a set of Jews. The fact that the three friends are not named, or in any way designated, but the whole Jewish race is referred to, shows that the purpose of these Chaldeans involved the whole Jewish people, and that they singled out Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego simply as test cases. Their elevation to positions Of such trust might well have caused jealousy of them.
Dan_3:9-12
They spake and said to the King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image: and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. The differences here between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are slight. Only, it may be observed, that in the repetition of the decree to the king, συμφωνία does not occur. Instead of saying, "they serve not thy gods," it renders, "thine idol they do not serve." Further, the word òÀáÄãÇú (‛), translated "business," is omitted, probably implying the omission in the original text of éúÈäåÉï . Theodotion's Version is considerably briefer in regard to the ninth verse, as it omits "answered and said," and "Nebuchadnezzar;" otherwise it is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, only it too omits συμφωνία . In the Peshitta we find a variation in the ninth verse; its rendering begins, "And they said to Nebuchadnezzar the king." As before mentioned, in the list of instruments pesanterin is omitted, and kinnor appears; otherwise the agreement is close with the Massoretic text. The Vulgate agrees with the Peshitta in its rendering of the ninth verse, but, unlike the Greek Version, inserts symphonia, and unlike the Peshitta, inserts psalterium. As to the Aramaic text, the most noticeable thing is the fact that in the K'thib, instead of ñåÌîÀÌôÉðÀéÈà (sumphonia) there appears ñÄéôÉðÀéÈà (siphonia). The twelfth verse has this peculiarity in it, that it is the only case where ÎéÇú , the sign of the accusative, so frequent in the Targums, occurs in Biblical Aramaic. In the inscription on the Hadad Statue at Sindschirli, line 28, we have åúä (v-th-h) as the sign of the acensative; as in the case before us, it serves for the oblique case of a pronoun. The adulatory address with which these Chaldeans begin is quite in accordance with Eastern usage. The point of the accusation against these three officials was that, being officials, they did not confirm by obedience the solemn decree of the monarch. Further, if this statue or obelisk were erected to Marduk (Merodach), whom Nebuchadnezzar specially worshipped, and whom he regarded as his special protector, the element of treason against the state might be implied in this refusal to give due obeisance to the tutelary god of the Babylonian Empire and its sovereign. The politics and warfare of that period proceeded on the assumption that the gods directly interfered in the affairs of the nations. Any slight done to the national god would—as it was believed—be avenged on the nation who had suffered it to pass unpunished. They summoned deities to leave cities they were besieging, and tried to persuade the inhabitants that even their god was on the side of the besieger. Thus Sennacherib (2Ki_19:22) asserts that Jehovah must be offended with Hezekiah. and Pharaoh-Necho claimed to Josiah that he went at God's command to fight against Assyria (2Ch_35:21). According to heathen notions generally, Chaldean and Babylonian included, some very slight inadvertence might vitiate a sacrifice, and change it from being a propitiation to the gods to an offence to them. If an inadvertence might thus be maleficent, much more direct disrespect such as that shown by these Jewish officials. But the accusers lay stress on another side of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar had set them over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but he had set up the golden image. There was thus an element of personal disrespect hinted at, made all the more heinous that the element of ingratitude was also present. But how is it that Daniel is not introduced into this narrative? Why was it that he was not attacked rather than his friends? It may be argued that this is another tradition, and that the union of Daniel with the three friends is due to that dovetailing of which so many traces are found—or alleged to be found—in the Pentateuch. But the editor who did the dovetailing in the present instance, did more than dovetail—they are introduced at various points in the narrative of the preceding chapter. Why did he not complete his work, and explain why Daniel was absent? If it is a work of imagination, it is necessary to account for the absence of Daniel; even if it is the result of editorial labour, still the absence of Daniel has to be accounted for or explained away. This would press heavily on one writing in the days of the Maccabees. On one chronicling events as they occurred, this might easily be passed over, because at the time every one in Babylon would be perfectly aware why Daniel was not there. The absence of all reference to Daniel in this chapter is an indirect proof of the antiquity and genuineness of the book of which it forms part. The reasons for Daniel's absence may easily be imagined. He might have been sent on official duty to a distant province of the empire, or, though this is not so likely, his presence at this festival might not be required A prosaic but possible solution of Daniel's absence might be illness. If he were known to be incapacitated by sickness from taking part in any public function, the Chaldeans would not damage their case by referring to him.
Dan_3:13
Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Ahed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king. The Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in translating çÀîÈà (ḥ') as a verb, and therefore rendering, θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ , "infuriated with rage." Theodotion is in close agreement with the Massoretic, as also the Pe-shitta, with this difference, that the Syriac repeats the preposition, in which it is followed by Jerome. The word translated. "brought" presents some grammatical difficulty: the word is äÅéúÇéåÌ (haythayoo). The form seems active, but the meaning is passive. Professor Bevan suggests a difference of vocalization. The accusation of those who desired to devour these Jewish councillors was successful in its immediate aim. Nebuchadnezzar is filled with rage and fury against those who, having been the creatures of his favour, had yet dared to do despite to his authority. It might even be that their unheard-of want of courtesy to the monarch would also be regarded as discourtesy still more flagrant to the god to whose honour the statue or pillar had been erected, and this dedicative feast instituted. He commands the criminals to be brought to him. Fierce and furious as Nebuchadnezzar is, fanatic as he is for the religion of his fathers, he is yet just. These officials, however disrespectfully they have acted, have yet a right to be heard in their own defence. They are sent for by the monarch, and in due course they come. It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar, with all his rage and fury, was yet shrewd enough to see envy behind the accusation; it is because these men are Jews, and have been highly advanced, that the Chaldeans are ready to bring accusations of impiety against them.
Dan_3:14
Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? The Septuagint rendering here is, "Whom when he saw, Nebuchadnezzar the king said to them, Wherefore, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do ye not worship my gods, nod before the golden image which I have set up do ye not prostrate yourselves?" There seems to have been a difference of reading here. The first words must have been read as áäåï òìéäåï (behon ‛), and the mysterious word äÇöÀãÈÌà (hatzeda) had occupied a position before, not after àîø . The word öÀãÈà in the aphel in Syriac means "to look steadily." This interpretation of the word shows that the translator had before him a document in which Syriac meanings might be expected. Theodotion renders the last clause, "If truly ( εἰ ἀληθῶς ) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, my gods ye do not worship, and before the golden image which I have set up ye do not prostrate yourselves?"—a construction that shows a slavish following of the Aramaic. The sense here is really the same as that of the Authorized Version. The Peshitta renders the opening word of this latter portion of the verse, "in truth"—a rendering with which Jerome agrees. Professor Bevan suggests another reading, äÇàÇæÀãÈÌà , followed by Behrmann. Unfortunately, the meaning of àÇæÀãÈÌà is very doubtful. The common rendering is "of set purpose." So Furst, Gesenius, Winer, among lexicographers, and Bertholdt, Ewald, Aben Ezra, Wordsworth, among commentators; Keil, Kliefoth, Kra-nichfeld, hold it to mean "with evil intent." It is suggested also that it may mean "in mockery." The reading suggested by Professor Bevan and supported by Behrmann is not to be thought of; they appeal to Theodotion, but when this word occurs in the previous chapter (verse 5), Theodotion translates ἀπέστη , which makes it evident that àæãà (azda) did not mean "truth" to him. More may be said for the Peshitta, only that, though azda does seem to mean "truth," the translation is not the same in Dan_2:5 and the present verse. If there is to be a change of reading, that indicated by the Septuagint translation is preferable. The Septuagint translator has had öãà before him, and there is no evidence that Theodotion had not. The change in the arrangement of the words is a simpler variation than any other, and it retains the word in its Syriac meaning; otherwise we should be inclined to follow the lexicographers, and translate "of set purpose." If we take the view of this word indicated above, then we may imagine Nebuchadnezzar looking steadfastly on those youths who had dared to oppose him, hoping, it may be, to see them shrink from his gaze, as he had seen so many of the kings he had conquered do. If this is correct, it gives a point to what the youths begin their answer with in Dan_2:16. If we take the more common rendering, we see the generosity of the king. Full of rage and fury as he is, he will give them an opening to say that it was of inadvertence that they failed to obey his decree. This is fully borne out by the next verse. If Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury at the crime against the gods, he yet was careful that the envy of the Chaldeans should not hinder him from giving the Jews who had been accused to him a chance to defend themselves. This mental fairness it was which, despite his outbursts of capricious rage, drew the affection of those about him to Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan_3:15
Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be east the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic text are not great. The last clause is rendered," but if not, know." It inserts the epithet "golden" after "image." The insertion of "know ye" makes the sentence run more easily, but it is not to be accepted. Here, as before, "midst" is omitted. Theodotion is very close to the Massoretic, but agrees with the Septuagint in its omission of "midst" and its insertion of "golden." The Peshitta is in yet closer agreement with the Massoretic text, save in regard to the musical instruments—pesanterin, as in the other cases, being omitted. It seems clear from this that the festival of the dedication of this new idol of the Babylonian king occupied several days. Nebuchadnezzar, willing to save those Jews, is ready to condone their first failure to obey his command if, probably at the sunrise of the following day, they were willing when they heard the sound of the musical instruments to fall down and worship this golden image which he had set up to the honour of his god. The latter clause does not seem in perfect harmony with the tone of the earlier part of the verse. There has been no reference in the conversation as reported to any other god to explain Nebuchadnezzar's demand, "Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?" Moreover, there is in the beginning a desire apparent to give these Jewish officials a way of escape, but in the last clause there is contempt as well as anger expressed. The fact is that while the simple structure of Shemitic lends itself to direct narration, the reader is not to suppose that, though speeches are reported in the oratio recta, they any more record or claim to record the ipsissima verba than if the speeches had been recorded in the oratio obliqua of more Western tongues. The presumption is that merely the main heads of the conversation are recorded. These very jolts and leaps are in themselves indirect evidences of the truth of the document with which we have to do. It would have been easy to insert a question and answer to bridge over the hiatus. Only one recording facts would be regardless of this. The attitude of mind expressed by these last words of Nebuchadnezzar are natural to a heathen, and especially to monarchs of the Assyrian type. Sennacherib's words of defiance (2Ki_18:33) are quite in the same line, "Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria?" The capture of Jerusalem by his arms was regarded by Nebuchadnezzar as a demonstration that the God of Israel was inferior to the gods of Babylonia. To Nebuchadnezzar this belief would not in the slightest degree contradict his previous declaration (Dan_2:47), that this same God was "a God of gods, and a Lord of kings." He might be great as a Revealer of secrets, but not in might to deliver—in that he was clearly inferior to the gods of Babylon, as the events of recent campaigns had abundantly proved. It is this declaration, with the idea behind it of the ]imitation of Jehovah, that gives the event narrated in this chapter its importance.
The word may have been modified from its more ancient to its more recent form, for the sake of readers. One of the suggestions of those who oppose the antiquity of the Book of Daniel is that ëÄÌðÉÌø (kinnor) is the word that would have been used by a genuine Aramaic writer of Daniel's period, as kinnor and qitharos (or qathros) represent one and the same instrument; but, unfortunately for this, in the Peshitta we have both terms, the one after the other.
The other words, ñåÌîôåÉðÀéÈà , συμφωνία , and ôÀñÇðÀúÅÌøÄéí (pesanterin), supposed to be equivalent to ψαλτηρίον , are on a different footing.
In the first place, any one who has studied the apocalyptic writings, must see how peculiarly liable they are to interpolation. There is hardly one that is not largely and obviously interpolated. No one can deny that this has taken place with. Daniel. The apocryphal additions are too well known for any one to maintain the opposite opinion. When, moreover, one begins to compare the Massoretic text with the more ancient versions, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and that of Theodotion, we at once see that the changes which the text has undergone have not been confined to large interpolations, but all through there are words and phrases where the versions differ from the Massoretic text and from each other. The text especially from which the Septuagint translation has been made, must have presented many and important verbal differences from that adopted by the Massoretes. Even Theodotion, though his version agrees more closely with the Massoretic text than does the Septuagint, differs from it in ways and in a degree than can at times be explained only on the supposition that the text before him was not identical with that adopted by the Massoretes. The supposition that Theodotion has been altered from the Septuagint has been hazarded, and in a few cases it may have some semblance of probability, but in other cases it is destitute of every shadow of likelihood. The Peshitta is another source of various readings. Its variations are independent of either of the other two versions. In some chapters these variations are more marked than in others, but in every case they are numerous enough to make any stress on individual words highly hazardous. While these variations are known and chronicled, there is no security that no variations occurred even before the types of the text separated from each other. In such a case as this, although it would be unscientific, on the ground of this uncertainty, to proceed to change the text to what seems to make better sense, it is equally unscientific to lay any evidential weight on single words.
But, further, no words are, in one respect, less evidential than musical terms. They are changed and modified with a freedom applied to few other things. Thus we have "cornet-a-piston" figuring also as "cornopean," two words like each other in sound, of the same meaning, but of widely different derivation. They pass from country to country with greater freedom than most other terms. To infer, then, that the writer of Daniel wrote under Greek domination, because certain Greek musical terms occur in the present Massoretic text, is rash in the extreme, and would, it seems to us, be universally regarded so, were there not an object to be gained by assuming that evidence drawn from them was liable to no doubt. New Testament critics have taught us to suspect what are called tendenz documents, i.e. documents that have an overweening bias towards one side of a controversy: there is such a thing as a tendenz judgment. The judgment of the critics in regard to the evidential value of these musical terms is a tendenz judgment, which we should say is even more to be suspected than the contents of a tendenz document.
The history of the argument from the alleged presence of Greek terms in Daniel is also instructive. The number of Greek terms that Hitzig and some earlier critics saw was large. Gradually they had to abandon all but those coming in the list of musical instruments here. Of these only four could be claimed as really Greek. However, one of these had soon to go, ùÇÒáÀëÈà ; it was maintained to be derived from the σαμβύκη . It was found that this Greek word was really derived from an Eastern, probably an Assyrian, source. Next, it has been acknowledged by Canon Driver, as above stated, that much stress cannot be laid on ÷ÇúÀãÉñ ( κιθὰρα ), seeing it is an instrument of such ancient date in Greece, that it might easily have drifted eastward, name and thing, to Babylon. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the word, in all probability, is not Greek, to begin with, but Eastern, probably Phoenician. In regard to the remaining words—sumphonya and pesanterin—it is argued that they are of Greek origin, and that, while Babylonian intercourse with Greece is not denied, the origin of these words is maintained to be late, at all events, in the sense in which they appear in this passage. Thus, pesanterin is declared to be the Greek ψαλτηρίον , and it is further said that ψαλτηρίον is not a term applied to musical instruments till late, Aristotle and Theophrastus being the earliest authors that use the word. That this word pesanterin is derived from ψαλτηρίον is supposed to be proved by an argument which shows that the Greek letter ψ is resolved, in passing into Aramaic, into ô and ; ñ second, that ì may be changed into , ð and that - ιον becomes not infrequently Îéï Even though all these points be admitted, it does not follow that pesanterin is derived from psalterion; as fair a case might be made out for deriving "mystery" from "mist" While Îéï sometimes represents - ιον , it much more frequently is simply the sign of the plural; and while ôÀ may be at times the first half of ψ resolved, it also does represent at times the Coptic article πε . While it is not impossible that santer may represent the remaining letters of the name of the Greek instrument, σαπτωρε has a meaning in Coptic also; it may mean a chorus—"those singing to an instrument." This, then, would show that pesanterin might mean those singing in accompaniment to the previously named instruments. Confirmatory of this is the fact that in Lower Egypt, at the present day, there is a musical instrument called the santeer. When one remembers the great intercourse that existed between Assyria and Egypt when Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal held possession of Egypt—the former of whom frequently held his court in Babylon—that Egyptian words should come into Babylon would not be extraordinary. We admit readily that possibility is not proof of actuality, yet it weakens the force of the other argument, which also is merely from possibility.
A prior question has to be settled before we deduce anything from the origin of this word pesanteria. Is it really part of the original text? There are in this third chapter of Daniel four distinct lists of what purport to be musical instruments. And these are arranged in such a way that the reader expects them to be identical. Each of these may thus be regarded as separate manuscripts. We have further three old versions, as already mentioned, as well as the Massoretic text: the Septuagint dated about b.c. 200; Theodotion and the Peshitta, dated about a.d. 150; the Massoretic text, being fixed somewhere about a.d. 600, and represented by manuscripts, the earliest of which is of the tenth century—the Qri and K'thib represent two forms of reading. Of these authorities the latest is the Massoretic text.
To begin with the Massoretic text, the first thing that meets us is that, while in the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth verses, the word is ôñðúøéï , in the seventh verse it is ôñðîøéï . This is not so insignificant as at first sight seems, for ú and è do not appear to have been pronounced in the same way originally, any more than the Greek θ and τ . But further, it is an acknowledged canon of criticism that when a passage has many variations of reading in different manuscripts, that itself raises a suspicion that it has come from the margin into the text. This variation of è and ú in a word is an instance similar to that of varying words in the case of a passage; a varying letter is, in the case of a word, a note conveying suspicion.
When we turn to the versions, we find that while the Greek—the Septuagint and Theodotion—have it, the word is quite omitted from the Syriac Peshitta. If it had dropped into the text from the margin, it would be most likely to do so in the Greek versions first, and then find its way into the Massoretic text afterwards. Hence the positive value of the evidence of the Greek versions is comparatively small, although their negative value is considerable. On the other hand, the word is not present at all in the Peshitta, which originated beyond the sphere of Greek domination. That being the state of the matter, we venture to maintain that the word pesanterin does not belong to the genuine text of Daniel.
The case against ñåîôðéà is yet stronger. In regard to this word there is a divergence between the Q'ri and the K'thib. Hence we may regard this as a case in which we have twenty manuscripts. If we now examine the evidence supplied by these, we shall find that the evidence for the presence of ñåîôáéà in the original text is very weak. In the K'thib, which represents in general the better text, we have sumphonya only in two cases, in one case we have siphonya, in the fourth case nothing at all. In the Q'ri we have three cases of sumphonya. When we turn to the Greek texts, we find that symphonia occurs in the Septuagint in two cases, in Theodotion only in one case. When we turn to the Peshitta, we have no case of sumphonia, but we have in all cases tziphonia, a form akin to what we find in the tenth verse in the Massoretic text. If, then, we take these various cases together, and sum them up, we lind eight cases of symphonia, five cases of siphonia, and seven cases of nothing at all. As the word as we have it now is distinctly Greek, the evidence of the Greek versions, while strong negatively, is weak positively. We mean by this that a Greek word put on the margin might easily slip into the text of the Septuagint, and thence into the Palestinian recension—the Massoretic. Moreover, the case against sumphonya is strengthened when we compare the instances in which it occurs with those in which it does not occur. If we looked at the matter apriori, the cases where a word would most likely be dropped is in a conversational repetition of such a list of instruments. But the best supported case of the occurrence of this word is in the offer made by Nebuchadnezzar, that if even yet they would yield, they would be forgiven. The word in question occurs here in the two texts represented by the Massoretic in the Septuagint and Theodotion. It does not appear in the Peshitta—its place being represented by tziphonia, as we said above. On the other hand, the place where we might most readily find a marginal note like sumphonia is precisely the last occurrence of a frequently recurring list. But, again, the place where we should most certainly expect to find every word of such a list given with scrupulous exaetness, is what purports to be the record of a proclamation. But in Theodotion the word in question is not present in his record of the proclamation. In the seventh verse, where the proclamation is repeated to show the obedience it received, the word sumphonya is absent in the Massoretic text and the versions. Further, next to the record of a proclamation in likelihood for an accurate repetition of all the words of suc