Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 14-30. DanieVs willingness to declare his dream to the king; his prayer for a revelation of the secret, and the answer to his prayer; his explanation before the king.

Ver. 14. Through Daniel's judicious interview with Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted. ^V Tfln DVDlj he answered, replied, counsel and understanding, i.e. the words of counsel and understanding; cf. Prov. xxvi. 16. The name Arioch appears in Gen. xiv. 1 as the name of the king of Ellasar, along with the kings of Elam and Shinar. It is derived not from the Sanscr. drjaka, venerabilis, but is probably formed from *VK9 a lion, as Tip: from fiur=1Bb. fcOrntrn"} is the chief of the bodyguard, which was regarded as the highest office of the kingdom (cf. Jer. xxxix. 9, 11, xl. 1 f¥.). It was his business to see to the execution of the king's commands; see 1 Kings ii. 25, 2 Kings xxv. 8.

Ver. 15. The partic. Aph. HDVnnp standing after the noun in the stat. absol. is not predicative: u on what account is the "command so hostile on the part of the king? " (Kran.), but it stands in apposition to the noun; for with participles, particularly when further definitions follow, the article, even in union with substantives defined by the article, may be and often is omitted; cf. Song vii. 5, and Ew. § 335 a. ^n, to be hard, sharp, hence to be severe. Daniel showed understanding and counsel in the question he put as to the cause of so severe a command, inasmuch as he thereby gave Arioch to understand that there was a possibility of obtaining a fulfilment of the royal wish. When Arioch informed him of the state of the matter, Daniel went in to the king — i.e., as is expressly mentioned in ver. 24, was introduced or brought in by Arioch — and presented to the king tho request that time should be granted, promising that he would show to the king the interpretation of the dream.

Ver. 16. With fWQn^ ITOta the construction is changed. This passage does not depend on ^ time, namely, to show the interpretation (Jlitz.), but is co-ordinate with the foregoing relative clause, and like it is dependent on NCT. The change of the construction is caused by the circumstance that in the last passage another subject needed to be introduced: The king should give him time, and Daniel will show the interpretation. The copulative 1 before fcO'J'D (interpretation) is used neither explicatively, namely, and indeed, nor is it to be taken as meaning also; the simple and is sufficient, although the second part of the request contains the explanation and reason of the first; i.e. Daniel asks for the granting of a space, not that he might live longer, but that he might be able to interpret the dream to the king. Besides, that he merely speaks of the meaning of the dream, and not also of the dream itself, is, as vers. 25 ff. show, to be here explained (as in ver. 24) as arising from the brevity of the narrative. For the same reason it is not said that the king granted the request, but ver. 17 f. immediately shows what Daniel did after the granting of his request. He went into his own house and showed the matter to his companions, that they might entreat God of His mercy for this secret, so that they might not perish along with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Ver. 18a. The final clause depends on yijn (v. 17). The 1 is to be interpreted as explicative: and indeed, or namely. Against this interpretation it cannot be objected, with Hitz., that Daniel also prayed. He and his friends thus prayed to God that He would grant a revelation of the secret, i.e. of the mysterious dream and its interpretation. The designation " God of heaven " occurs in Gen. xxiv. 7, where it is used of Jehovah; but it was first commonly used as the designation of the almighty and true God in the time of the exile (cf. vers. 19, 44; Ezra i. 2, vi. 10, vii. 12, 21; Neh. i. 5, ii. 4; Ps. exxxvi. 26), who, as Daniel names Him (ch. v. 23), is the Lord of heaven; i.e. the whole heavens, with all the stars, which the heathen worshipped as gods, are under His dominion.

Ver. 19. In answer to these supplications, the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night-vision. A vision of the night is not necessarily to be identified with a dream. In the case before us,

Daniel does not speak of a dream; and the idea that he had dreamed precisely the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar is arbitrarily imported into the text by Hitz. in order to gain a " psychological impossibility/' and to be able to cast suspicion on the historical character of the narrative. It is possible, indeed, that dreams may be, as the means of a divine revelation, dream-visions, and as such may be called visions of the night (cf. vii. 1, 13); but in itself a vision of the night is a vision simply which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake.1

Ver. 20. On receiving the divine revelation, Daniel answered (TO) with a prayer of thanksgiving. The word nay retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God. The forms Kin!^ and in the plur. fin? and |^n7? which are peculiar to the biblical Chaldee, we regard, with Maur., Hitz., Kran., and others, as the imperfect or future forms, 3d pers. sing, and plur., in which the p instead of the * is to be explained perhaps from the Syriac praeform. 3, which is frequently found also in the Chaldee Targums (cf. Dietrich, de sermonis chald. propiietate, p. 43), while the Hebrew exiles in the word Kin used? instead of J as more easy of utterance. The doxology in this verse reminds us of Job i. 21. The expression u for ever and ever" occurs here in the O. T. for the first time, so that the solemn liturgical Beracha (Blessing) of the second temple, Neh. ix. 5, 1 Chron. xvi. 36, with which also the first (Ps. xlv. 14) and the fourth (Ps. cvi. 48) books of the Psalter conclude, appears to have been composed after this form of praise used by Daniel. "The name of God" will be praised, i.e. the manifestation of the existence of God in the world; thus, God so far as He has anew given manifestation of His glorious existence, and continually bears witness that He it is who possesses

1 " Dream and vision do not constitute two separate categories. The dream - image is a vision, the vision while awake is a dreaming — only that in the latter case the consciousness of the relation between the inner and the outer maintains itself more easily. Intermediate 'between the two stand the night-visions, which, as in Job iv. 13, either having risen up before the spirit, fade away from the mind in after- thought, or, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii. 21»), are an image before the imagination into which the thoughts of the night run out. Zechariah saw a number of visions in one night, ch. i. 7, vi. 15. Also these which, according to ch. i. 8, are called visions of the night are not, as Ew. and Hitz. suppose, dream-images, but are waking perceptions in the night. Just because the prophet did not sleep, he says, ch. iv., ' The angel awaked me as one is awaked out of sleep.'' " — Tiioluck's Die Propheten, u.s.w., p. 52.

wisdom and strength (cf. Job xii. 13). The *» before the n? is the emphatic re-assnmption of the preceding confirmatory *!, for.

Vers. 21, 22. The evidence of the wisdom and power of God is here unfolded; and first the manifestation of His power. He changes times and seasons, LXX., Theodot., /caipovs teal xpovovs, would be more accurately y^povovs /ecu /caipovs, as in Acts i. 7, 1 Thess. v. 1; for the Peschito in these N. T. passages renders XP^voL by the Syriac word which is equivalent to K^DT, according to which rjV is the more general expression for time = circumstance of time, fDt for measured time, the definite point of time. The uniting together of the synonymous words gives expression to the thought: ex arbitrio Dei pendere revolutiones omnium omnino temporum, qucecunque et qualia-cunque ilia fuerint. C. B. Mich. God's unlimited control over seasons and times is seen in this, that He sets up and casts down kings. Thus Daniel explains the revelation regarding the dream of Nebuchadnezzar made to him as announcing great changes in the kingdoms of the world, and revealing God as the Lord of time and of the world in their developments. All wisdom also comes from God. He gives to men disclosures regarding His hidden counsels. This Daniel had just experienced. Illumination dwells with God as it were a person, as Wisdom, Prov* viii. 30. The Kethiv tfVru Js maintained against the Keri by wru, ch. v. 11, 14. With the perf. injp the participial construction passes over into the temp. Jin,; the perfect stands in the sense of the completed act. Therefore (ver. 23) praise and thanksgiving belong to God. Through the revelation of the secret hidden to the wise men of this world He has proved Himself to Daniel as the God of the fathers, as the true God in opposition to the gods of the heathen. |Jp* = nnjn, and now.

Vers. 24 ff. Hereupon Daniel announced to the king that he was prepared to make known to him the dream with its interpretation. r\yi ^i? v3, for that very reason, viz. because God had revealed to him the king's matter, Daniel was brought in by Arioch before the king; for no one had free access to the king except his immediate servants. b\X, he went, takes up inconsequenter the?JJ (intravit), which is separated by a long sentence, so as to connect it with what follows. Arioch introduced (ver. 25) Daniel to the king as a man from among the captive Jews who could make known to him the interpretation of his dream. Arioch did not need to take any special notice of the fact that Daniel had already (ver. 16) spoken with the king concerning it, even if he had knowledge of it. In the form!>#n, ver. 25, also ch. iv. 3 (6) and vi. 19 (18), the Dagesch lying in bv<^, ver. 24, is compensated by an epenthetic:: cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. § 19, 1. npnannzi, in haste, for the matter concerned the further execution of the king's command, which Arioch had suspended on account of Daniel's interference, and his offer to make known the dream and its interpretation, rins'^n for nnaBto, cf. Winer, § 15, 3. The relative H, which many Codd. insert after "H3, is the circumstantially fuller form of expression before prepositional passages. Cf. ch. v. lo, vi. 14; Winer, § 41,5.

Vers. 26, 27. To the question of the king, whether he was able to show the dream with its interpretation, Daniel replies by directing him from man, who is unable to accomplish such a thing, to the living God in heaven, who alone reveals secrets. The expression, whose name was Belteshazzar (ver. 26), intimates in this connection that he who was known among the Jews by the name Daniel was known to the Chaldean king only under the name given to him by the conqueror— that Nebuchadnezzar knew of no Daniel, but only of Belteshazzar. The question, u art thou able? " i.e. hast thou ability? does not express the king's ignorance of the person of Daniel, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, "art thou really able?" This amazement Daniel acknowledges as justified, for he replies that no wise man was able to do this thing. In the enumeration of the several classes of mamcians the word TP^n is the general designation of them all. u But there is a God in heaven." Daniel u declares in the presence of the heathen the existence of God, before he speaks to him of His works." Klief. But when he testifies of a God in heaven as One who is able to reveal hidden things, he denies this ability eo ipso to all the so-called gods of the heathen. Thereby he not only assigns the reason of the inabilitv of the heathen wise men, who knew not the living God in heaven, to show the divine mysteries, but he refers also all the revelations which the heathen at anytime receive to the one true God. The 1 in Jfllrn introduces the development of the general thought. That there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, Daniel declares to the king by this, that he explains his dream as an inspiration of this God, and shows to him its particular circumstances. God made known to him in a dream " what would happen in the end of the days." NW mrm—OWl nnna designates here not the future generally (Hav.), and still less "that which comes after the days, a time which follows after another time, comprehended under the D^JH " (Klief.), but the concluding future or the Messianic period of the world's time; see Gen. xlix. 1.

From nrj *TPjM in ver. 29 that general interpretation of the expression is not proved. The expression KJD^ ITHnKS of ver. 28 is not explained by the nrj "nnx wr£ >^ no of ver. 29, but this fin nnK relates to Nebuchadnezzar's thoughts of a future in the history of the world, to which God, the revealer of secrets, unites His Messianic revelations; moreover, every Messianic future event is also an nri *VW (cf. ver. 45), without, however, every nJ1 *!.?$ being also Messianic, though it may become so when at the same time it is a constituent part of the future experience and the history of Israel, the people of the Messianic promise (Kran.). « The visions of thy head " (cf. iv. 2, 7, 10, vii. 1) are not dream-visions because they formed themselves in the head or brains (v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), which would thus be only phantoms or fancies. The words are not a poetic expression for dreams hovering about the head (Hav.); nor yet can we say, with Klief., that " the visions of thy head upon thy bed, the vision which thou sawest as thy head lay on thy pillow," mean only dreamvisions. Against the former interpretation this may be stated, that dreams from God do not hover about the head; and against the- latter, that the mention of the head would in that case be superfluous. The expression, peculiar to Daniel, designates much rather the divinely ordered visions as such, " as were perfectly consistent with a thoughtfulness of the head actively engaged " (Kran.). The singular Ktfl nyn goes back to "H^pn (thy dream) as a fundamental idea, and is governed by ^*n *Wfl in the sense: " thy dream with the visions of thy head; " cf. Winer, § 49, 6. The plur. \ltn is used, because the revelation comprehends a series of visions of future events.

Ver. 29. The pronoun nn$K {as for thee), as Daniel everywhere writes it, while the Keri substitutes for it the later Targ. form WK, is absolute, and forms the contrast to the njto (as for me) of ver. 30. The thoughts of the king are not his dream (Hitz.), but thoughts about the future of his kingdom which filled his mind as he lay upon his bed, and to which God gave him an answer in the dream (v. Leng., Maur., Kran., Klief.). Therefore they are to be distinguished from the tJioughts of thy heart, ver. 30, for these are the thoughts that troubled the king, which arose from the revelations of the dream to him. The contrast in ver. 30a and oOb is not this: u not for my wisdom before all that live to show," but " for the sake of the king to explain the dream; " for 2 is not the preposition of the object, but of the means, thus: " not by the wisdom which might be in me." The supernatural revelation (v V?) forms the contrast, and the object to which ^ rnyrtjf points is comprehended implicit^ in fcO*rr?3"JP, for in the words, " the wisdom which may be in me before all living," lies the unexpressed thought: that I should be enlightened by such superhuman wisdom. pin^, u that they might make it known: " the plur. of undefined generality, cf. Winer, § 49, 3. The impersonal form of expression is chosen in order that his own person might not be brought into view. The idea of Aben Ezra, Vatke, and others, that angels are the subject of the verb, is altogether untenable.

Vers. 31-45. The Dream and its Interpretation. — Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great metallic image which was terrible to look upon. vN [behold), which Daniel interchanges with VW, corresponds with the Hebrew words flNTlj *ifcO, or H3H. D?¥ is not an idol-image (Hitz.), but a statue, and, as is manifest from the following description, a statue in human form, ^n is not the indefinite article (Ges., Win., Maur.), but the numeral. "The world-power is in all its phases one, therefore all these phases are united in the vision in one image" (Klief.). The words from NE>?V to 1W contain two parenthetical expressions, introduced for the purpose of explaining the conception of W& (great). DNfJ is to be united with W), \tt here and at ch. vii. 20 f. is used by Daniel as a peculiar form of the demonstrative pronoun, for which Ezra uses IfJ. The appearance of the colossal image wras terrible, not only on account of its greatness and its metallic splendour, but because it represented the world-power of fearful import to the people of God (Klief.).

Vers. 32, 33. The description of the image according to its several parts is introduced with the absolute NOT? *Wj concerning this image, not: u this was the image." The pronoun fcttn is made prominent, as fljl, ch. iv. 15, and the Hebr. nt more frequently, e.g. Isa. xxiii. 13. ^in, plur. pn — its singular occurs only in the Targums — corresponding with the Hebr. ntn, the breast. jTO, the bowels, here the abdomen enclosing the bowels, the belli/. H3T, the thighs (hilfte) and upper part of the loins. Ver. 33. P^, the leg, including the upper part of the thigh. p<"Up is partitive: part of it of iron. Instead of finm the Keri prefers the fern. |H30 here and at vers. 41 and 42, with reference to this, that TOH is usually the gen. fern., after the custom of nouns denoting members of the body that are double. The Kethiv unconditionally deserves the preference, although, as the apparently anomalous form, which appears with this suffix also in ch. vii. 8, 20, after substantives of seemingly feminine meaning, where the choice of the masculine form is to be explained from the undefined conception of the subjective idea apart from the sex; cf. Ewald's Lehr. d. hebr. Sp. § 319.

The image appears divided as to its material into four or five parts — the head, the breast with the arms, the belly with the thighs, and the legs and feet. " Only the first part, the head, constitutes in itself a united whole; the second, with the arms, represents a division; the third runs into a division in the thighs; the fourth, bound into one at the top, divides itself in the two legs, but has also the power of moving in itself; the fifth is from the first divided in the legs, and finally in the ten toes runs out into a wider division. The material becomes inferior from the head downward — gold, silver, copper, iron, clay; so that, though on the whole metallic, it becomes inferior, and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in common earthly matter. Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron, yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay." — Klief. The fourth and fifth parts, the legs and the feet, are, it is true, externally separate from each other, but inwardly, through the unity of the material, iron, are bound together; so that we are to reckon only four parts, as afterwards is done in the interpretation. This image Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating (ver. 34), i.e. reflected upon with a look directed toward it, until a stone moved without human hands broke loose from a mountain, struck against the lowest part of the image, broke the whole of it into pieces, and ground to powder all its material from the head even to the feet, so that it was scattered like chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. PT? **? I does n°t mean • " which was not in the hands of any one" (Klief.), but the words are a prepositional expression for without; 2 &6, not with = without, and *l expressing the dependence of the word on the foregoing noun. Without hands, without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence; cf. ch. viii. 25; Job xxxiv. 20; Lam. iv. 6. •^IDij as one = at once, with one stroke. ^ for *j5H is not intransitive or passive, but with an indefinite plur. subject: they crushed, referring to the supernatural power by which the crushing was effected. The destruction of the statue is so described, that the image passes over into the matter of it. It is not said of the parts of the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs, that they were broken to pieces by the stone, " for the forms of the world-power represented by these parts had long ago passed away, when the stone strikes against the las* form of the world-power represented by the feet," but only of the materials of which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction predicated; " for the materia], the combinations of peoples, of which these earlier forms of the world-power consist, pass into the later forms of it, and thus are all destroyed when the stone destroys the last form of the world-power" (Klief.). But the stone which brought this destruction itself became a great mountain which filled the whole earth. To this Daniel added the interpretation which he announces in ver. 36. "M?&U? we will telly is " a generalizing form of expression" (Kran.) in harmony with ver. 30. Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped the same God of revelation; cf. ver. 23b.

Vers. 37, 38. The interpretation begins with the golden head. tfsD7D Tpo, the usual title of the monarchs of the Oriental worldkingdoms (vid. Ezek. xxvi. 7), is not the predicate to iTOKj but stands in apposition to N3^. The following relative passages, vers. 376 and 38, are only further explications of the address King of KingSy in which nrtf X is again taken up to bring back the predicate. T*??i wherever, everywhere. As to the form PM^J, see the remarks under P^Ni? at ch. hi. 3. The description of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion over men, beasts, and birds, is formed after the words of Jer. xxvii. 6 and xxviii. 14; the mention of the beasts serves only for the strengthening of the thought that his dominion was that of a world-kingdom, and that God had subjected all things to him. Nebuchadnezzar's dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilised world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, "the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all worldpowers " (Klief.). ntffcTj, stat. emphat. for K0ri; the reading Prefcn defended by Hitz. is senseless. If Daniel called him (Nebuchadnezzar) the golden head, the designation cannot refer to his person, but to the world-kingdom founded by him and represented in his person, having all things placed under his sway by God. Hitzig's idea, that Nebuchadnezzar is the golden head as distinguished from his successors in the Babylonian kingdom, is opposed by ver. 39, where it is said that after him (not another king, but) "another kingdom " would arise. That " Daniel, in the words, ' Thou art the golden head,' speaks of the Babylonian kingdom as of Nebuchadnezzar personally, while on the contrary he speaks of the other world-kingdoms impersonally only as of kingdoms, has its foundation in this, that the Babylonian kingdom personified in Nebuchadnezzar stood before him, and therefore could be addressed by the word thou, while the other kingdoms could not " (Klief.).

Ver. 39. In this verse the second and third parts of the image are interpreted of the second and third world-kingdoms. Little is said of these kingdoms here, because they are more fully described in ch. vii. viii. and x. That the first clause of ver. 39 refers to the second, the silver part of the image, is apparent from the fact that ver. 38 refers to the golden head, and the second clause of ver. 39 to the belly of brass. According to this, the breast and arms of silver represent another kingdom which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. after the Babylonian kingdom. This kingdom will be "^p NJHN, inferior to thee, i.e. to the kingdom of which thou art the representative. Instead of the adjective WTjK, here used adverbially, the Masoretes have substituted the adverbial form XHK, in common use in later times, which Hitz. incorrectly interprets by the phrase " downwards from thee." Since the other, i.e. the second kingdom, as we shall afterwards prove, is the Medo- Persian world-kingdom, the question arises, in how far was it inferior to the Babylonian? In outward extent it was not less, but even greater than it. With reference to the circumstance that the parts of the image representing it were silver, and not gold as the head was, Calv., Aub., Kran., and others, are inclined to the opinion that the word u inferior " points to the moral condition* of the kingdom. But if the successive deterioration of the inner moral condition of the four world-kingdoms is denoted by the succession of the metals, this cannot be expressed by ^3*? **V"!^> because in regard to the following world-kingdoms, represented by copper and iron, such an intimation or declaration does not find a place, notwithstanding that copper and iron are far inferior to silver and gold. Klief., on the contrary, thinks that the Medo- Persian kingdom stands inferior to, or is smaller than, the Babylonian kingdom in respect of universality; for this element is exclusively referred to in the text, being not only attributed to the Babylonian kingdom, ver. 37, in the widest extent, but also to the third kingdom, ver. 39, and not less to the fourth, ver. 40. The universality belonging to a world-kingdom does not, however, require that it should rule over all the nations of the earth to its very end, nor that its territory should have a defined extent, but only that such a kingdom should unite in itself the oUovfievrj^ i.e. the civilised world, the whole of the historical nations of its time. And this was truly the case with the Babylonian, the Macedonian, and the Roman world-monarchies, but it was not so with the Medo-Persian, although perhaps it was more powerful and embraced a more extensive territory than the Babylonian, since Greece, which at the time of the Medo-Persian monarchy had already decidedly passed into the rank of the historical nations, as yet stood outside of the Medo-Persian rule. But if this view is correct, then would universality be wanting to the third, i.e. to the Graeco- Macedonian world-monarchy, which is predicated of it in the words " That shall bear rule over the whole earth," since at the time of this monarchy Rome had certainly passed into the rank of historical nations, and yet it was not incorporated with the Macedonian empire.

The Medo-Persian world-kingdom is spoken of as "inferior" to the Babylonian perhaps only in this respect, that from its commencement it wanted inner unity, since the Medians and Persians did not form a united people, but contended with each other for the supremacy, which is intimated in the expression, ch. vii. 5, that the bear " raised itself up on one side: " see under that passage. In the want of inward unity lay the weakness or the inferiority in strength of this kingdom, its inferiority as compared with the Babylonian. This originally divided or separated character of this kingdom appears in the image in the circumstance that it is represented by the breast and the arms. " Medes and Persians," as Hofm. ( Weiss, u. Erf. i. S. 279) well remarks, u are the two sides of the breast. The government of the Persian kingdom was not one and united as was that of the Chaldean nation and king, but it was twofold. The Magi belonged to a different race from Cyrus, and the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians." This two-sidedness is plainly denoted in the two horns, of the ram, ch. viii.

Ver. 396 treats of the third world-kingdom, which by the expression *"!££, u another," is plainly distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate u of copper, brazen." In this chapter it is said only of this kingdom that " it shall rule over the whole earth," and thus be superior in point of extent and power to the preceding kingdoms. Cf. vii. 6, where it is distinctly mentioned that u power was given unto it." Fuller particulars are communicated regarding the second and third world-kingdoms in ch. viii. and x. f.

Vers. 40-43. The interpretation of the fourth component part of the image, the legs and feet, which represent a fourth worldkingdom, is more extended. That kingdom, corresponding to the legs of iron, shall be hard, firm like iron. Because iron breaks all things in pieces, so shall this kingdom, which is like to iron, break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms.

Ver. 40. Instead of K$Wj which is formed after the analogy of the Syriac language, the Keri has the usual Chaldee form FWJpai, which shall correspond to the preceding nwvpn, ver. 39. See the same Keri ch. iii. 25, vii. 7, 23. *) '5pv3 does not mean just as (Ges., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), but because, and the passage introduced by this particle contains the ground on which this kingdom is designated as hard like iron, /^n^ breaks in pieces, in Syriac to forge, i.e. to break by the hammer, cf. twin, bruised grain, and thus separated from the husks. r?N~?3 is referred by Kran., in conformity with the accents, to the relative clause, a because by its union with the following verbal idea a blending of the image with the thing indicated must first be assumed; also nowhere else, neither here nor in ch. vii., does the non-natural meaning appear, e.g., that by the fourth kingdom only the first and second kingdoms shall be destroyed; and finally, in the similar expression, ch. vii. 7, 19, the P^n stands likewise without an object." But all the three reasons do not prove much. A mixing of the figure with the thing signified does not lie in the passage: " the fourth (kingdom) shall, like crushing iron, crush to pieces all these" (kingdoms). But the "nonnatural meaning," that by the fourth kingdom not only the third, but also the second and the first, would be destroyed, is not set aside by our referring r?*? '? to the before-named metals, because the metals indeed characterize and represent kingdoms. Finally, the expressions in ch. vii. 7, 19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourtli kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. " The elements out of which the and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persian kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian worldkingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom " (Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush " all these" past kingdoms as iron, i.e. will not assume the nations and civilisations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughput possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (ver. 41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.

Regarding l^ft, see under ver. 33. *lDn means clay, a piece of clay, then an earthly vessel, 2 Sam. v. 20. "inja in the Targums means potter, also potter s earth, potsherds. The ">nD **i serves to strengthen the *)Dn7 as in the following the addition of NJ^P, clay, in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for 3?S always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen. x. 25, Ps. lv. 10, Job xxxviii. 25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s. v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. **?¥?, firmness, related to 3^, Pa. to make fast, but in Chald. generally plantatio, properly a slip, a plant.

Vers. 42, 43. In ver. 42 the same is said of the toes of the feet, and in ver. 43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain. The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (ver. 43), most interpreters refer to the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers to the marriages between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, of which indeed there is mention made in ch. xi. G and 17, but not here; while Hofm. thinks it relates to marriages, such as those of the German Kaiser Otto XI, and the Russian Grand-Duke Wladimir with the daughters of the Kaiser of Eastern Rome. But this interpretation is rightly rejected by Klief., as on all points inconsistent with the text. The subject to P?"|3jno is not the kings, of whom mention is made neither in ver. 43 nor previously. For the two feet as well as the ten toes denote not kings, but parts of the fourth kingdom; and even in ver. 44, by TO, not kings in contradistinction to the kingdoms, but the representatives of the parts of the kingdom denoted by the feet and the toes as existing contemporaneously, are to be understood, from which it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that kings is the subject to pinyrip (shall mingle themselves).

As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e. their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e. the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them. If, then, the " mixing themselves with the seed of men" points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities. But the expression is not to be limited to this, although ^Jjnrij Ezra ix. 2, occurs of the mixing of the holy nation with the heathen by marriage. The peculiar expression NGWK JHT, the seed of men, is not of the same import as 3HT roais^ but is obviously chosen with reference to the following contrast to the divine Ruler, ver. 44 f., so as to place (Kran.) the vain human endeavour of the heathen rulers in contrast with the doings of the God of heaven; as in Jer. xxxi. 27 E*3£ XHT is occasioned by the contrast of ^Dnzi jn?. The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with mingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium is only spoken of as the most important and successful means.

But this mixing together will succeed just as little as will the effort to bind together into one firm coherent mass iron and clay. The parts mixed together will not cleave to each other. Regarding i'TOj see under ver. 20 kingdom which the God of heaven will set up. u In the days of these kings/' i.e. of the kings of the world-kingdoms last described; at the time of the kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of the feet of the image into which the fourth world-monarchy extends itself; for the stone (ver. 34) rolling against the feet of the image, or rather against the toes of the feet, breaks and destroys it. This kingdom is not founded by the hands of man, but is erected by the God of heaven, and shall for ever remain immoveable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one of which will be annihilated by the other. Its dominion will not be given to another people. nntopp, his dominion, i.e. of the kingdom. This word needs not to be changed into nrrD^ which is less suitable, since the mere status absol. would not be here in place. Among the world-kingdoms the dominion goes from one people to another, from the Babylonians to the Persians, etc. On the contrary, the kingdom of God comprehends always the same people, i.e. the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His own, only not the Israel Kara adpKa, but the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16). But the kingdom of God will not merely exist eternally without change of its dominion, along with the wrorld-kingdoms, which are always changing and bringing one another to dissolution, it will also break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms (19^, from ^D, to bring to an end, to make an end to them), but itself shall exist for ever. This is the meaning of the stone setting itself free without the hands of man, and breaking the image in pieces.

Ver. 45. The N^tsp before rnyrw, which is wanting in ver. 34, and without doubt is here used significantly, is to be observed, as in ver. 42 " the toes of the feet," which in ver. 33 were also not mentioned. As it is evident that a stone, in order to its rolling without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a mountain, so in the express mention of the mountain there can be only a reference to Mount Zion, where the God of heaven has founded His kingdom, which shall from thence spread out over the earth and shall destroy all the world-kingdoms. Cf. Ps. 1. 2, Isa. ii. 3, Mic. iv. 2.

The first half of the 45th verse (down to N?lH1) gives the confirmation of that which Daniel in ver. 44 said to the king regarding the setting up and the continuance of the kingdom of God, and essentially belongs to this verse. On the other hand, Hitz. (and Kran. follows him) wishes to unite this confirmatory passage with the following: " because thou hast seen that the stone, setting itself free from the mountain, breaks in pieces the iron, etc., thus has God permitted thee a glimpse behind the veil that hides the future," — in order that he may conclude from it that the writer, since he notes only the vision of the stone setting itself free as an announcement of the future, betrayed his real standpoint, i.e. the standpoint of the Maccabean Jew, for whom only this last catastrophe was as yet future, while all the rest was already past. This conclusion Kran. has rejected, but with the untenable argument that the expression, " what shall come to pass hereafter," is to be taken in agreement with the words, " what should come to pass," ver. 29, which occur at the beginning of the address. Though this may in itself be right, yet it cannot be maintained if the passage ver. 45a forms the antecedent to ver. 456. In this case n:*i (this), in the phrase " after this" ( = hereafter, ver. 45), can be referred only to the setting loose of the stone. But the reasons which Hitz. adduces for the uniting together of the passages as adopted by him are without any importance. Why the long combined passage cannot suitably conclude with ^?l!11 there is no reason which can be understood; and that it does not round itself is also no proof, but merely a matter of taste, the baselessness of which is evident from ver. 10, where an altogether similar long passage, beginning with *% Mp v3 (forasmuch as), ends in a similar manner, without formally rounding itself off. The further remark also, that the following new passage could not so unconnectedly and baldly begin with an n?K, is no proof, but a mere assertion, which is set aside as groundless by many passages in Daniel where the connection is wanting; cf. e.g. iv. 166, 27. The want of the copula before this passage is to be explained on the same ground on which Daniel uses an p6k (stat. absol., i.e. without the article) instead of Nn?K Nin? Ezra v. 8. For that an 1=6*5 means, not " a (undefined) great God," but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (ver. 28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious. Kran. has rightly remarked, that an nbx may stand " in elevated discourse without the article, instead of the prosaic Km Knptf, Ezra v. 8." The elevated discourse has occasioned also the absence of the copula, which will not be missed if one only takes a pause at the end of the interpretation, after which Daniel then in conclusion further says to the king, " The great God has showed to the king what will be hereafter." nJ1 ^.n^j after this which is now, does not mean " at some future time " (Hitz.), but after that which is at present, and it embraces the future denoted in the dream, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till the setting up of the kingdom of God in the time of the Messiah.

Ver. 456. The word with which Daniel concludes his address, 3*5P, firm, sure, is the dream, and certain its interpretation, is not intended to assure the king of the truth of the dream, because the particulars of the dream had escaped him, and to certify to him the correctness of the interpretation (Kran.), but the importance of the dream should put him in mind to lay the matter to heart, and give honour to God who imparted to him these revelations; but at the same time also the word assures the readers of the book of the certainty of the fulfilment, since it lay far remote, and the visible course of things in the present and in the proximate future gave no indication or only a very faint prospect of the fulfilment. For other such assurances see ch. viii. 26, x. 21, Rev. xix. 9, xxi. 5, xxii. 6.

We shall defer a fuller consideration of the fulfilment of this dream or the historical references of the four world-kingdoms, in order to avoid repetition, till we have expounded the vision which Daniel received regarding it in ch. vii.

Vers. 46-49. The impression which this interpretation of the dream made upon Nebuchadnezzar, and the consequences which thence arose for Daniel.

The announcement and the interpretation of the remarkable dream made so powerful an impression on Nebuchadnezzar, that he fell down in supplication before Daniel and ordered sacrifice to be offered to him. Falling prostrate to the earth is found as a mark of honour to men, it is true (1 Sam. xx. 41, xxv. 28; 2 Sam. xiv. 4), but "HD is used only of divine homage (Isa. xliv. 15, 17, 19, xlvi. 6, and Dan. iii. 5 ff.). To the Chaldean king, Daniel appeared as a man in whom the gods manifested themselves; therefore he shows to him divine honour, such as was shown by Cornelius to the Apostle Peter, and at Lystra was shown to Paul and Barnabas, Acts x. 25, xiv. 13. HI13D, an unbloody sacrifice, and pnH*3, are not burnt sacrifices or offerings of pieces of fat (Hitz.), but incensing s, the offering of incense; cf. Ex. xxx. 9, where the n~}pp is particularly mentioned along with the n^y and the nmp. *]D3 is, with Hitz., to be taken after the Arabic in the general signification sacrificare, but is transferred zeugmatically from the pouring out of a drink-offering to the offering of a sacrifice. Ver. 47, where Nebuchadnezzar praises the God of the Jews as the God of gods, does not stand in contradiction to the rendering of divine honour to Daniel in such a way that, with Hitz., in the conduct of the king we miss consistency and propriety, and find it improhable. For Nebuchadnezzar did not pray to the man Daniel, but in the person of Daniel to his God, i.e. to the God of the Jews; and he did this because this God had manifested Himself to him through Daniel as the supreme God, who rules over kings, and reveals hidden things which the gods of the Chaldean wise men were not able to reveal. Moreover, in this, Nebuchadnezzar did not abandon his heathen standpoint. He did not recognise the God of the Jews as the only, or the alone true God, but only as God of gods, as the highest or the most exalted of the gods, who excelled the other gods in might and in wisdom, and was a Lord of kings, and as such must be honoured along with the gods of his own country. >r\ DiypTtDj of truth (it is) that, stands adverbially for truly.

Ver. 48. After Nebuchadnezzar had given honour to the God of the Jews, he rewarded Daniel, the servant of this God, with gifts, and by elevating him to high offices of state. W, to make great, is more fuJly defined by the following passages. B^plff!}, he made him a man of power, ruler over the province of Babylon, i.e. vicegerent, governor of this province. According to ch.- iii. 2, the Chaldean kingdom consisted o£ several Wjy*1*pj each of which had its own |to?B*. The following PJJD 2"\) depends zeugmatically, however, on &o?W*}: and (made him) president over all the wise men. P^D, Hebr. D^Jp, vicegerent, prefect, is an Aryan word incorporated into the Hebrew, ^ooydvr]^ m Athen., but not yet certainly authenticated in Old Persian; vide Spiegel in Delitzsch on Isa. xli. 25. The wise men of Babylon were divided into classes according to their principal functions, under P^p, chiefs, whose president (= JD"2"}? Jer. xxxix. 3) Daniel was.

Ver. 49. At Daniel's request the king made his three friends governors of the province. *3B} is not, with Hav. and other older writers, to be translated that he should ordain; this sense must be expressed by the imperfect. The matter of the prayer is not specially given, but is to be inferred from the granting of it. But this prayer is not, with Hitz. and older interpreters, to be understood as implying that Daniel entreated the king to release him from the office of vicegerent, and that the king entrusted that office to his three friends; for if Daniel wished to retain this dignity, but to transfer the duty to his friends, there was no need, as Hitz. thinks, for this purpose, for the express appointment of the king; his mere permission was enough. But whence did

Hitz. obtain this special information regarding the state arrangements of Babylon? and how does he know that *3D, to decree, means an express appointment in contradistinction to a royal permission? The true state of the matter Hav. has clearly explained. The chief ruler of the province had a number of virapyoi, under -officers, in the province for the various branches of the government. To such offices the king appointed Daniel's three friends at his request, so that he might be able as chief ruler to reside continually at the court of the king. KflTay, rendering of service = ^\?^\} ^1^V.9 service of the king, 1 Chron. xxvi. 30, according as the matter may be: the management of business. N27D jnro, near the gate, i.e. at the court of the king, for the gate, the door, is named for the building to which it formed the entrance; cf.?|fen W, Esth. ii. 19, 21, iii. 2 ff. Gesenius is in error when he explains the words there as meaning that Daniel was made prefect of the palace.

Nebuchadnezzar commanded a colossal golden image to be set up in the plain of Dura at Babylon, and summoned all his high officers of state to be present at its consecration. He caused it to be proclaimed by a herald, that at a given signal all should fall down before the image and do it homage, and that whosoever refused to do so would be cast into a burning fiery furnace (vers. 1-7). This ceremony having been ended, it was reported to the king by certain Chaldeans that Daniel's friends, who had been placed over the province of Babylon, had not done homage to the image; whereupon, being called to account by the king, they refused to worship the image because they could not serve his gods (vers. 8-18). For this opposition to the king's will they were cast, bound in their clothes, into the burning fiery furnace. They were uninjured by the fire; and the king perceived with terror that not three, but four men, were walking unbound and uninjured in the furnace (vers. 19-27). Then he commanded them to come out; and when he found them wholly unhurt, he not only praised their God who had so wonderfully protected them, but also commanded, on the pain of death, all the people of his kingdom not to despise this God (vers. 28-30).

The LXX. and Theodotion have placed the date of this event in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, apparently only because they associated the erection of this statue with the taking of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, although that city was not taken and destroyed till the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8 ff.). But though it is probable that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had firmly established his world-kingdom by the overthrow of all his enemies, first felt himself moved to erect this image as a monument of his great exploits and of his world-power; yet the destruction of the capital of Judea, which had been already twice destroyed, can hardly be regarded as having furnished a sufficient occasion for this. This much, however, is certain, that the event narrated in this chapter occurred later than that of the 2d chapter, since ch. iii. 12 and 30 refer to ch. ii. 49; and on the other hand, that they occurred earlier than the incident of the 4th chapter, in which there are many things which point to the last half of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, while the history recorded in the chapter before us appertains more to the middle of his reign, when Nebuchadnezzar stood on the pinnacle of his greatness. The circumstance that there is no longer found in the king any trace of the impression which the omnipotence and infinite wisdom of the God of the Jews, as brought to view in the interpretation of his dream by Daniel, made upon his mind (ch. ii.), affords no means of accurately determining the time of the occurrence here narrated. There is no need for our assuming, with Jerome, a velox oblivio veritatis, or with Calvin, the lapse of a considerable interval between the two events. The deportment of Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion does not stand in opposition to the statements made at the close of ch. ii. The command that all who were assembled at the consecration of the image should fall down before it and worship it, is to be viewed from the standpoint of the heathen king. It had no reference at all to the oppression of those who worshipped the God of the Jews, nor to a persecution of the Jews on account of their God. It only demanded the recognition of the national god, to whom the king supposed he owed the greatness of his kingdom, as the god of the kingdom, and was a command which the heathen subjects of Nebuchadnezzar could execute without any violence to their consciences. The Jews could not obey it, however, without violating the first precept of their law. But Nebuchadnezzar did not think on that. Disobedience to his command appeared to him as culpable rebellion against his majesty. As such also the conduct of Daniel's friends is represented to him by the Chaldean informers in ver. 12. The words of the informers, u The Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon have not regarded thee, O king; they serve not thy gods," etc., clearly show that they were rightly named (ver. 8) " accusers of the Jews," and that by their denunciation of them they wished only to expel the foreigners from their places of influence; and for this 'purpose they made use of the politico-national festival appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as a fitting opportunity. Hence we can understand Nebuchadnezzar's anger against those who disregarded his command; and his words, with which he pronounced sentence against the accused — " who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hand?" — are, judged of from the religious point of view of the Israelites, a blaspheming of God, but considered from Nebuchadnezzar's heathen standpoint, are only an expression of proud confidence in his own might and in that of his gods, and show nothing further than that the revelation of the living God in ch. ii. had not permanently impressed itself on his heart, but had in course of time lost much of its influence over him.

The conduct of Nebuchadnezzar toward the Jews, described in this chapter, is accordingly fundamentally different from the relation sustained by Antiochus Epiphanes towards Judaism; for he wished entirely to put an end to the Jewish form of worship. In the conduct of Daniel's friends who wrere accused before the king there is also not a single trace of the religious fanaticism prevalent among the Jews in the age of the Maccabees, who were persecuted on account of their fidelity to the law. Far from trusting in the miraculous help of God, they regarded it as possible that God, whom they served, would not save them, and they only declare that in no case will they reverence the heathen deities of the king, and do homage to the image erected by him (ver. 16 ff.).

The right apprehension of the historical situation described in this chapter is at complete variance with the supposition of the modern critics, that the narrative is unhistorical, and was invented for the purpose of affording a type for the relation of Antiochus Epiphanes to Judaism. The remarkable circumstance, that Daniel is not named as having been present at this festival (and he also would certainly not have done homage to the image), can of itself alone furnish no argument against the historical accuracy of the matter, although it cannot be explained on the supposition made by Hgstb., that Daniel, as president over the wise men, did not belong to the class of state-officers, nor by the assertion of Hitz., that Daniel did not belong to the class of chief officers, since according to ch. ii. 49 he had transferred his office to his friends. Both suppositions are erroneous; cf. under ch. ii. 49. But many other different possibilities may be thought of to account for the absence of all mention of Daniel's name. Either he may have been prevented for some reason from being present on the occasion, or he may have been present and may have refused to bow down before the image, but yet may only not have been informed against. In the latter case, the remark of Calvin, ut abstinuerint a Daniele ad tempus, quern sciebant magnifieri a Rege, would scarcely suffice, but we must suppose that the accusers had designed first only the overthrow of the three rulers of the province of Babylon.1 But the circumstance that Daniel, if he were present, did not employ himself in behalf of his friends, may be explained from the quick execution of Babylonish justice, provided some higher reason did not determine him confidently to commit the decision of the matter to the Lord his God.2

Vers. 1-18. TJie erection and consecration of the golden image, and the accusation brought against DanieVs friends, that they had refused to obey the hinges command to do homage to this image,

Yer. 1. Nebuchadnezzar commanded a golden image to be erected, of threescore cubits in height and six cubits in breadth.

1 Kran.'s supposition also (p. 153), that Daniel, as president over the class of the wise men, claimed the right belonging to him as such, while in his secular office he could be represented by his Jewish associates, and thus was withdrawn from the circle of spectators and from the command laid upon them of falling down before the image, has little probability; for although it is not said that this command was laid upon the caste of the wise men, and even though it should be supposed that the priests were present at this festival as the directors of the religious ceremonial, and thus were brought under the command to fall down before the image, yet this can scarcely be supposed of the whole caste. But Daniel could not in conscience take part in this idolatrous festival, nor associate himself with the priests, nor as president of all the Magi withdraw into the background, so as to avoid the ceremony of doing homage to the image.

2 We have already in part noticed the arguments against the historical accuracy of the narrative presented by the opponents of the genuineness of the book, such as the giving of Greek names to the musical instruments, and the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes in placing an idol-image on the altar of burntoffering (pp. 34, 50). All the others are dealt with in the Exposition. The principal objection adduced is the miracle, on account of which alone Hitz. thinks himself warranted in affirming that the narrative has no historical reality.

EN is properly an image in human likeness (cf. ch. ii. 31), and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or an obelisk, for which na«0 would have been the appropriate word. Yet from the use of the word 0?V it is not by any means to be concluded that the imarre was in all respects perfectly in human form. As to the upper part — the head, countenance, arms, breast— it may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar. This would be altogether in accordance with the Babylonian art, which delighted in grotesque, gigantic forms; cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 96 f. The measure, in height threescore cubits, in breadth six cubits, is easily explained, since in the human figure the length is to the breadth in the proportion of about six to one. In the height of threescore cubits the pedestal of the image may be regarded as included, so that the whole image according to its principal component part (a potiori) was designated as E?>'; although the passage Judg. xviii. 30, 31, adduced by Kran., where mention is made of the image alone which was erected by Micah, without any notice being taken of the pedestal belonging to it (cf. vers. 17 and 18), furnishes no properly authentic proof that t>D3 in vers. 30 and 31 denotes the image with the pedestal. The proportion between the height and the breadth justifies, then, in no respect the rejection of the historical character of the narrative. Still less does the mass of gold necessary for the construction of so colossal an image, since, as has been already mentioned (p. 39), according to the Hebrewmodes of speech, we are not required to conceive of the flo-ure as having been made of solid gold, and since, in the great riches of the ancient world, Nebuchadnezzar in his successful campaigns might certainly accumulate an astonishing amount of this precious metal. The statements of Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Babylonian idol-images,1 as well as the description in Isa. xl. 19 of the construction of idol-images, lead us to think of the imace as merely overlaid with plates of gold.

The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. The ancients make mention

1 According to Herod, i. 183, for the great golden image of Belus, which was twelve cubits high, and the great golden table standing before it, the golden steps and the golden chair, only 800 talents of gold were used; and according to Diod. Sic. ii. 9, the golden statue, forty feet high, placed in the temple of Belus consisted of 1000 talents of gold, which would have been not far from sufficient if these objects had been formed of solid gold. Diod. also expressly says regarding the statue, that it was made with the hammer, and therefore was not solid. Cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 98, and Kran. in loco.

of two places of the name of Dura, the one at the mouth of the Clmboras where it empties itself into the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc, xxiii. 5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v. 52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon, which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene, could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Exped. Scientif. en Mesopotamie, i. p. 238 ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one which is named el Mokattat (= la colline aligne'e), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques crues (^), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar.1

There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image. According to the common view (cf. e.g. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 97), Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it with religious ceremonies. On the

1 " On seeing this mound," Oppert remarks (I. c. p. 239), " one is immediately struck with the resemblance which it presents to the pedestal of a colossal statue, as, for example, that of Bavaria near Munich, and everything leads to the belief that the statue mentioned in the book of Daniel (ch. iii. 1) was set up in this place. The fact of the erection by Nebuchadnezzar of a colossal statue has nothing which can cause astonishment, however recent may have been the Aramean form of the account of Scripture." Oppert, moreover, finds no diffi-

culty in the size of the statue, but says regarding it: " There is nothing

incredible in the existence of a statue sixty cubits high and six cubits broad; moreover the name of the plain of Dura, in the province (HJ'HD) of Babylon, agrees also with the actual conformation of the ruin."

other hand, Hofm. (Weiss, u. Erf. i. p. 277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god which Nebuchadnezzar required (vers. 12, 14, 18) from his officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods; and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image, because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But the idea of representing the worldpower founded by him as a 3?T*1 D?V was probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the 0^ seen (ch. ii.) by him in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that the significance of the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zundel (p. 13), explain the absence of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue, because the supposition of Daniel's not having been called to be present is a mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous.

Ver. 2. Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the chief officers of the kingdom to be present at the solemn dedication of the image. n?E>, he sent, viz. B^pD or D*yi, messengers, 1 Sam. xi. 7; 2 Chron. xxx. 6, 10; Esth. iii. 15. Of the great officers of state, seven classes are named: — 1. K*33"Wnx i.e. administrators of the Khshatra. in Old Pers. dominion, province, and pdvan in Zend., guardians, watchers, in Greek XaTpairr)?, the chief representatives of the king in the provinces. 2. KJ3JDj Hebr. B^JP, from the Old Pers. (although not proved) cakana, to command (see under ch. ii. 48), commanders, probably the military chiefs of the provinces. 3. KflJQ?, Hebr. nns,

HiriDj also an Old Pers. word, whose etymon and meaning have not yet been established (see under Hag. i. 1), denotes the presidents of the civil government, the guardians of the country; cf. Hag. i. 1, 14, Neh. v. 14, 18. 4. ^3"^, chief judges, from the Sem. "in, to distinguish, and YIN*, dignity (cf. JfTVTTK), properly, chief arbitrators, counsellors of the government. 5. RJ!?J?| a word of Aryan origin, from "iyp, identical with 13T1 (see note, p. 45), masters of the treasury^ superintendents of the public treasury. 6. N'llirn, the Old Pers. ddta-bara (p. 45), guardians of the law, lawyers (cf. W, law). 7. KJRBty Semitic, from *\i IV. to give a just sentence, thus judges in the narrower sense of the word. Finally, all ^bW, riders, i.e. governors of provinces, prefects, who were subordinate to the chief governor, cf. ch. ii. 48, 49.

All these officers were summoned " to come (NJ"1*? from NAN, with the rejection of the initial n) to the dedication of the image." The objection of v. Leng.' and Hitz., that this call would " put a stop to the government of the country," only shows their ignorance of the departments of the state-government, and by no means makes the narrative doubtful. The affairs of the state did not lie so exclusively in the hands of the presidents of the different branches of the government, as that their temporary absence should cause a suspension of all the affairs of government, najn is used of the dedication of a house (Deut. xx. 5) as well as of the temple (1 Kings viii. 63; 2 Chron. vii. 5; Ezra vi. 16), and here undoubtedly denotes an act connected with religious usages, by means of which the image, when the great officers of the kingdom fell down before it, was solemnly consecrated as the symbol of the world-power and (in the heathen sense) of its divine glory. This act is described (vers. 3-7) in so far as the object contemplated rendered it necessary.

When all the great officers of state were assembled, a herald proclaimed that as soon as the sound of the music was heard, all who were present should, on pain of death by being cast into the fire, fall down before the image and offer homage to it; which they all did as soon as the signal was given. The form PpNi?, ver. 3, corresponds to the sing. fiX?T (ch. ii. 31) as it is written in Syr., but is read?&P. The Masoretes substitute for it in the Talm. the common

45, and on the form jw, see under ch. ii. 5. P.?$, they say, for u it is said to you." The expression of the passive by means of a plural form of the active used impersonally, either participially or by 3d pers. perf. plur., is found in Hebr., but is quite common in Chald.; cf. Ewald, Lehr. d. hebr. Spr. § 128, b, and Winer, Chald. Gram. § 49, 3. The proclamation of the herald refers not only to the officers who were summoned to the festival, but to all who were present, since besides the officers there was certainly present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. N'BK denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. n?sx? rri?3K Gen. xxv. 16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and Num. xxv. 15 the separate tribes of the Midianites, and is thus not so extensive in its import as r©V, peoples. ^f?, corresponding to riwpn, Isa. Ixvi. 18, designates (vide Gen. x. 5, 20, 31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of lang-uacre are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command. It is a mode of expression (cf. vers. 7, 29, 31 [iv. 1], and vi. 26) specially characterizing the pathetic style of the herald and the official language of the world-kingdom, which Daniel also (ch. v. 19, vii. 14) makes use of, and which from the latter passage is transferred to the Apocalypse, and by the union of these passages in Daniel with Isa. Ixvi. 18 is increased to eOvn (0^3 in Isa.), <f>v\\al, \aol /cal yKcoaaai (Rev. v. 9, vii. 9, xiii. 7, xiv. 6, xvii. 15).

In the same passage W»T F13, ver. 7 (cf. also ver. 8), is interchanged with N^ys, at the time (vers. 5 and 15); but it is to be distinguished from Nny^O, at the same moment, vers. 6 and 15; for fcW or «"W has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment, cf. ch. iv. 16, 30, v. 5, and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbin. In the enumeration also of the six names of the musical instruments with the addition: and all kinds of music, the pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed. Regarding the Greek names of three of these instruments see p. 34. The great delight of the Babylonians in music and stringed instruments appears from Isa. xiv. 11 and Ps. cxxxvii. 3, and is confirmed by the testimony of Herod, i. 191, and Curtius, v. 3. **?"£, horn, is the far-sounding tuba of the ancients, the T^p. or 1fiW of the Hebr.; see under Josh, vi. 5. NJVpiTJ'p, from PT^, to hiss, to whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the LXX. ami Theodot. avpiy^, the shepherd's or Pan's pipes, which consisted of several reeds of different thicknesses and of different lengths bound together, and, according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, iv. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes. Dirrp (according to the Kethiv; but the Keri and the Targ. and Rabbin. give the form Ehnp) is the Greek KiOdpa or /ciOapLs, hai'p, for the Greek ending t? becomes o? in the Aramaic, as in many similar cases; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1215. N33D? corresponding to the Greek aafiftvtcr], but a Syrian invention, see p. 34, is, according to Athen. iv. p. 175, a four-stringed instrument, having a sharp, clear tone; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 935. Pl^pS (in ver. 7 written with a D instead of n, and in vers. 10 and 15 pointed with a Tsere under the D) is the Greek -tyaXTrjpioy, of which the Greek ending iov becomes abbreviated in the Aram, into \\ (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1116). The word has no etymology in the Semitic. It was an instrument like a harp, which according to Augustin (on Ps. xxxii. [xxxiii.] 2 and Ps. xlii. [xliii.] 4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the soundingboard, those of the psalterium (or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Rosellini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., Table xiii. 4). rn's^Dj in ver. 10 »TO*B*9, is not derived from fSD, contignare, but is the Aramaic form of av/KJxovLa, bag-pipes, which is called in Italy at the present day sampogna, and derives its Greek name from the accord of two pipes placed in the bag; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 941. fcO^T signifies, not " song," but musical playing, from "HSTj to play the strings, yjrdWecv; and because the music of the instrument was accompanied with song, it means also the song accompanying the music. The explanation of N"JE? by singing stands here in opposition to the *}T?3, since all sorts of songs could only be sung after one another, but the herald speaks of the simultaneous rise of the sound. The limiting of the word also to the playing on a stringed instrument does not fit the context, inasmuch as wind instruments are also named. Plainly in the words N"}*?- V.! ^ all the other instruments not particularly named are comprehended, so that K"ittT is to be understood generally of playing on musical instruments. XF\yw~r\2, in the same instant. The frequent pleonastic use in the later Aramaic of the union of the preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, whereby the preposition is frequently repeated before the noun, as ejj. s&T$ ^, ch. v. 12, cf. ch. v. 30, has in the Bib. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense even this, even that.

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

Ver. 8. ff. The Chaldeans immediately denounced Daniel's three friends as transgressors of the king's command, njn??p^3, therefore, viz. because the friends of Daniel who were placed over the province of Babylon had not, by falling down before the golden form KPj in sound the HIM as the contracte 1 plur.. maintained as correct; for the fori here, as in ver. 18, supporting itself on *~~n^.. r. 11, rests on the idea that by the honourin^ his god on doing of homa^ the image is meant, while the not doing homage to the image on. s proof of this, that they altogether refused to honour the gods of Nebuchadnezzar. This is placed in the foreground by the accusers, so as to arouse the indignation of the kin j. u These Chaldeans," Hitz. remarks quite justly, kf knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be J known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobev the king's command, they make use of their knowledge."

Yer. 13. That they succeeded in their object. Nebuchadnezzar shows in the command given in anger and fury to bring the rebels before him. WW, notwithstanding its likeness to the Hebr. Hiphil form vrn. jsa# xxi# X4, is not the Hebraizing Apliel, but, as Own, ch. vi. 18, shows, is a Hebraizing passive form of the Aphel, since the active form is Wn, ch. v. 3, and is a passive formation peculiar to the Bib. Chald., for which in the Targg. Ittaphal is used. Ii ers. 14-18. The trial of the accused.

"\ er. 14. The question KWj the old translators incorrectly explain by Is it true? In the justice of the accusation Xebuchad- nezzar had no doubt whatever, and N*J¥ has not this meaning. Also the meaning, scorn, which *WK in Aram, has, and L. de Dieu, Hav., and Kran. make use of, does not appear to be quite consistent, since Nebuchadnezzar, if he had seen in the refusal to do homage to the image a despising of his gods, then certainly he would not have publicly repeated his command, and afforded to the accused the possibility of escaping the threatened punishment, as he did (ver. 15). We therefore agree with Hitz. and Klief., who interpret it, after the Hebr. n^V, Num. xxxv. 20 f., of malicious resolution, not merely intention, according to Gesen., Winer, and others. For all the three could not unintentionally or accidentally have made themselves guilty of transgression. The form ^]^ we regard as a noun form with n interrog. prefixed in adverbial cases, and not an Aphel formation: Scorning, Shadrach, etc., do ye not serve? (Kran.) The affirmative explanation of the verse, according to which the king would suppose the motive of the transgression as decided, does not agree with the alternative which (ver. 15) he places before the accused. But if ^"JVl1 is regarded as a question, there is no need for our supplying the conjunction *n before the following verb, but we may unite the K*ixn in one sentence with the following verb: " are ye of design... not obeying f " Nebuchadnezzar speaks of his god in contrast to the God of the Jews.

Ver. 15. rTJ?^ taken with the following clause, IvSfi... **!, is not a circumlocution for the future (according to Winer, Chald. Gram. § 45, 2). This does not follow from the use of the simple future in the contrast, but it retains its peculiar meaning ready. The conclusion to the first clause is omitted, because it is self-evident from the conclusion of the second, opposed passage: then ye xcill not be cast into the fiery furnace. Similar omissions are found in Ex. xxxii. 32, Luke xiii. 9. For the purpose of giving strength to his threatening, Nebuchadnezzar adds that no god would deliver them out of his hand. In this Hitz. is not justified in supposing there is included a blaspheming of Jehovah like that of Sennacherib, Isa. xxxvii. 10. The case is different. Sennacherib raised his gods above Jehovah, the God of the Jews; Nebuchadnezzar only declares that deliverance out of the fiery furnace is a work which no god can accomplish, and in this he only indirectly likens the God of the Jews to the gods of the heathen.

Ver. 16. In the answer of the accused, "flfi'lMa is not, contrary to the accent, to be placed in apposition to NS????; for, as Kran.

has rightly remarked, an intentional omission of N2?p in addressing Nebuchadnezzar is, after ver. 18, where R33B occurs in the addross, as little likely as that the Athnach is placed under N3?^ only on account of the apposition going before, to separate from it the nomen propr.; and an error in the placing of the distinctivus, judging from the existing accuracy, is untenable. " The direct address of the king by his name plainly corresponds to the king's address to the three officers in the preceding words, ver. 14." We are not to conclude from it, as Hitz. supposes, u that they address him as a plebeian," but much rather, as in the corresponding address, ver. 14, are to see in it an evidence of the deep impression sought to be produced in the person concerned.

Ver. 16. D5ns? IS tne accusv and is n°t to De connected with n:i?V: as to this command (Hav.). If the demonstrative were present only before the noun, then the noun must stand in the status absoL as ch. iv. 15 (18). E^S, from the Zend. rpaiti = irpo<;, and gam, to go, properly, u the going to," therefore message, edict, thenx generally tvord (as here) and matter (Ezra vi. 11), as frequently in the Targ., corresponding to the Hebr. 13^.

Ver. 17.?*?} denotes the ethical ability, i.e. the ability limited by the divine holiness and righteousness, not the omnipotence of God as such. For this the accused did not doubt, nor will they place in question the divine omnipotence before the heathen king. The conclusion begins after the Athnach, and in means, not see! lo I (according to the old versions and many interpreters), for which Daniel constantly uses OK or OX; but it means if, as here the contrast SO \[}\ and if not (ver. 18), demands. There lies in the answer, " If our God will save us, then... and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods," neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle (ver. 17), nor fanaticism (ver. 18), as Berth., v. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submissign to the will of God.

" The three simply see that their standpoint and that of the king are altogether different, also that their standpoint can never be clearly understood by Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they give up any attempt to justify themselves. But that which was demanded of them they could not do, because it would have been altogether contrary to their faith and their conscience. And then without fanaticism they calmly decline to answer, and only say, 4 Let him do according to his own will;' thus without superstitiousness committing their deliverance to God" (Klief.).

Vers. 19-27. TJie judgment pronounced on the accused, their ■punishment, and their miraculous deliverance.

After the decided refusal of the accused to worship his gods, Nebuchadnezzar changed his countenance toward them. Full of anger at such obstinacy, he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times greater than was usual (ver. 19), and that the rebels should be bound in their clothes by powerful men of his army, and then cast into the furnace (vers. 20, 21). The form of his countenance changed, and his wrath showed itself in the lineaments of his face. The Kethiv IjifiBW (plur.) refers to the genitive [*niB3M, plur., li of his countenances"] as the chief idea, and is not, after the Keri, to be changed into the sing. NTpp for KM??. On nyn^nn, sevenfold, cf. Winer, Ckald. Gram. § 59, 5. m *l bv, heyond that which was fit, i.e. which was necessary. Seven is used as expressive of an exceedingly great number, with reference to the religious meaning of the punishment.

Ver. 21. Of the different parts of clothing named, |y3"!? are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New

Persian shalwdr, which in the Arabic is Jj^U-j; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, Iv^ip denotes underclothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt, |iTe*DBj for which the Keri uses the form tffWBB, corresponding to the

1 The LXX. have omitted pzriD in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by irotpeifietpetj and the third-named piece of dress p3")3 by vepuanifcioeSi which the LXX. have rendered by rtxpecs isd ruu xtQctkuu. Theodoret explains it: Tsptx'jYipl'hcts §g rocg kccKov/xsum; dv ct^vp iHocg "Ktytt. These are, according to Herod, vii. 161, the dvct%vplhg, i.e. braccse, worn by the Persians icepl rd ox.s'hix. Regarding locpufixpoc Theodoret remarks: tart UspaiKav Treptfiohoiicjy gf&jj. Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the aupdfBocpcc (p^mp) from the nspixuYipilfas; but the false interpretation of Jv3"ip by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with |^2"13 and the identification of the two, the wspiKv^fiths being interpreted of coverings for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: " cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceameniis et vestibus," while

Chald. portions of Daniel by fUftD, tunica, and is derived from BBfo, expandii (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion's translation, iiapai, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek Trejaaos, the covering for the head worn by the €(f)7)j3oi. 1*31? are mantles, from '31?, K. ^3, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1 Chron. xv. 27 of the putting around or putting on of the b'VD (upper garment). tfnngTO are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that t^i3^ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job xxiv. 7 and 2 Kings x. 22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the TPJiD, the kiOwv iroSr/ve/crjs XiWo?, the Nt^OS worn above it, aWou elplveov KiOcova, and the *V2")3 thrown above that, yXav&Luv \evKov; while under the word flrPBw the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood.1 The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (ver. 27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine tciOcov iroh-nveKiyz XtWo?, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.

Ver. 22. *1 p (because that), a further explanatory expression added to nn?2p"73 (wholly for this cause): because the word of the king was sharp, and in consequence of it (1), the furnace was heated beyond measure for that reason. The words "^N NH?3

Luther has " cloaks, shoes, and hats." This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwar into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: 2 a, p a. /3 a, p cc \aH<; TLspoiKYi' htoi le T^kyovai fipetKtec Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains cotpetfiocpce. by fipotxiot, Ki/n/xlhg, oxehioii. Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara or saraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.

1 "With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus I.e., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.

{these mighty men) stand here in the status absoL, and are again taken up in the pronoun Jton after the verb ^P. If the three were brought up to the furnace, it must have had a mouth above, through which the victims could be cast into it. When heated to an ordinary degree, this could be done without danger to the men who performed this service; but in the present case the heat of the fire was so great, that the servants themselves perished by it. This circumstance also is mentioned to show the greatness of the miracle by which the three were preserved unhurt in the midst of the furnace. The same thing is intended by the repetition of the word PflS?B? bound, ver. 23, which, moreover, is purposely placed at the close of the passage to prepare for the contrast pj?, at liberty, free from the bonds,1 ver. 25.

Ver. 24 ff. The king, who sat watching the issue of the matter, looked through the door into the furnace, and observed that the three who had been cast into it bound, walked about freed from their bonds and unhurt; and, in truth, he saw not the three only, but also a fourth, " like to a son of the gods," beside them. At this sight he was astonished and terrified. He hastily stood up; and having assured himself by a consultation with his counsellors that three men had indeed been cast bound into the furnace, while he J: saw four walking in the midst of it, he approached the mouth of the furnace and cried to the three to come forth. They immediately came out, and were inspected by the assembled officers of state, and found to be wholly uninjured as to their bodies, their clothes being unharmed also, and without even the smell of fire upon them. n?^9 refers, without doubt, to the officers of the kingdom, ministers or counsellors of state standing very near the king, since they are named in ver. 27 and ch. vi. 8 (7) along with the first three ranks of officers, and (ch. iv. 23) during Nebuchadnezzar's madness they conducted the affairs of government. The literal meaning of the word, however, is not quite obvious. Its derivation from the Chald. H^> duces, with the Hebr. article (Gesen.), which can only be supported by ^"J?1P, Pro v. xi. 14

1 Between vers. 23 and 24 the LXX. have introduced the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three men in the fiery furnace; and these two hymns are connected together by a narrative which explains the death of the Chaldeans who threw the three into the furnace, and the miracle of the deliverance of Daniel's friends. Regarding the apocryphal origin of these additions, composed in the Greek language, which Luther in his translation has rightly placed in the Apocrypha, see my Lehr. der Einl. in d. A. Test. § 251.

(Targ.), is decidedly opposed by the absence of all analogies for the blending into one word of the article with a noun in the Semitic language. The Alkoran offers no corresponding analogues, since this word with the article is found only in the more modern dialects. But the meaning which P. v. Bohlen (Symbolce ad interp. s. Codicis ex ling. pers. p. 26) has sought from the Persian word which is translated by simul judex, i.e. socius in judicio, is opposed not only by the fact that the compensation of the Mini by the Dagesch, but also the composition and the meaning, has very little probability.

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

Acting on this assumption, which did not call in question the deliverance of the accused by the miraculous interposition of the Deity, Nebuchadnezzar approached the door of the furnace and cried to the three men to come out, addressing them as the servants (worshippers) of the most high God. This address does not go beyond the circle of heathen ideas. He does not call the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego the only true God, but only the most high God, the chief of the gods, just as the Greeks called preserve) is here and everywhere in Daniel (ver. 32, ch. iv. 14, 21, etc.) pointed by the Masoretes according to the form HN^y (with n) prevailing in the Targg. The forms DB^ NOK'a, are peculiar to Daniel (ver. 27 f., ch. iv. 30, v. 21, vii. 11). The Targg. have KDB*3 instead of it.

Vers. 28-30. The impression made by this event on Nebuchadnezzar.

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

Ver. 29.. Regarding the collocation of the words ]&p) HttK DJJ, see under ver. 4; and regarding the pO'Hil and the threatened punishment, see under ch. ii. 5. nri3 we regard, with the LXX., Theodrt., Vulg., and old interpreters, as a fern, adverbial: ovtcos, ita, as it occurs in ch. ii. 10, Ezra v. 7, and Jer. x. 11. The interpreting of it as masculine, as this God, does not correspond with the heathen consciousness of God, to which a God perceptible by sight was more appropriate than a God invisible (Kran.). The history concludes (ver. 30) with the remark that Nebuchadnezzar now regarded the three men with the greatest favour. In what way he manifested his regard for them is not stated, inasmuch as this is not necessary to the object of the narrative, npsn with?, to give to any one happiness, prosperity, to cause him to be fortunate.

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

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

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