Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

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

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

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

But if Josephus did not himself read the work of Berosus, but only reported what he found in the extracts by Polyhistor, we need not wonder though he found nothing regarding Nebuchadnezzar's madness. And yet Josephus has preserved to us a notice from Berosus which points to the unusual malady by which Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted before his death, in the words, " Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the fore-mentioned wall, fell sick and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years" (contra Apio?i, i. 20). In these words lies more than the simple remark, that Nebuchadnezzar, as is wont to happen to the most of men, died after an illness going before, and not suddenly, as Berth., Hitz., and others wish to interpret it. Berosus uses a formula of this kind in speaking neither of Nabonedus nor of Neriglissor, who both died, not suddenly, but a natural death. He remarks only, however, of Nebuchadnezzar's father: " Now it so fell out that he (his father Nabopolassar) fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon," because he had before stated regarding him, that on account of the infirmity of old age he had committed to his son the carrying on of the war against Egypt; and hence the words, u at that time he fell into a distemper," or the distemper which led to his death, acquire a particular significance.1 If, accordingly, the "falling sick" pointed to an unusual affliction

1 "When Hitzig adduces 2 Kings xiii. 14 in support of his view, he has failed to observe that in this place is narrated how the tidings of Elisha's sickness unto death gave occasion to the king Joash to visit the prophet, from upon Nebuchadnezzar, so also the fact that Berosus adds to the statement of the distemper the account of his death, while on the contrary, according to this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar again recovered and reigned still longer, does not oppose the reference of the " distemper" to the king's madness; for according to Berosus, as well as according to Daniel, the malady fell upon Nebuchadnezzar in the later period of his reign, after he had not only carried on wars for the founding and establishment of his world-kingdom, but had also, for the most part at least, finished his splendid buildings. After his recovery down to the time of his death, he carried forward no other great work, regarding which Berosus is able to give any communication; it therefore only remained for him to mention the fact of his death, along with the statement of the duration of his reign. No one is able, therefore, to conclude from his summary statement, that Nebuchadnezzar died very soon after his recovery from the madness. A yet more distinct trace of the event narrated in this chapter is found in Abydenus, in the fragments preserved by Euseb. in the Prcspar. evang. ix. 41, and in the Chronic. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 59, wherein Abydenus announces as a Chaldee tradition (Xe- <yerai 777309 XaX&uW), that Nebuchadnezzar, after the ending of his war in the farther west, mounted his royal tower, i.e. to the flat roof, and, there seized by some god (KaTaaj(e6elr) 0ea> oreco 8^), he oracularly {Beairiaai) announced to the Babylonians their inevitable subjugation by the Heparin rj/mlovos united with the Medes, who would be helped by their own Bab}7lonian gods. He prayed that the Persian might be destroyed in the abyss of the sea, or condemned to wander about in a desert wilderness, inhabited only by wild beasts; and for himself he wished a peaceful death before these misfortunes should fall on the Chaldean empire. Immediately after this utterance Nebuchadnezzar was snatched away from the sight of men (jrapa^prjfia ^(pdviaro). In this Chaldean tradition Eusebius has recognised1 a disfigured tradition of this his-

•whom he at that time received a significant prophetical announcement, and that thus this passage contains something quite different from the trivial notice merely that'Elisha was sick previous to his death.

1 In the Chron. Arm. p. 61, Eusebius has thus remarked, after recording the saying by Abyd.: " In Danielis sane historiis de Nabuchadonosoro na.rra.tur, quomodo et quo pacto mente captus fuerit: quod si Grsecorum Jiistorici aut Chaldsei morbum tegunt et a Deo eum acceptum comminiscuntur, Deumque insaniam, quse in ilium intravit, vel Dsemonem quendam, qui in eum venerit, nominant, mirandum non est. Etenim hoc quidem illorum mos est, cuncta similia Deo adscribere, Deosque nominare Dxmones."

torv; and even Bertholdt will not u deny that this strange Baying is in its main parts identical with our Aramaic record." On the other hand, Hit/, knows nothing else to bring forward than that u the statement sounds so fabulous, that no historical substance can be discovered in it." But the historical substance lies in the occurrence which Daniel relates. As, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was on the roof of his palace when he was suddenly struck by God with madness, so also according to Abydenus he was co? di>a(3a$ eVt tcl (3ci(ri\ijia when seized by some god, or possessed. Here not only the time and the place of the occurrence agree, but also the circumstance that the kind's bein^ seized or bound was effected by some god, i.e. not by his own, but by a strange god. Not the less striking is the harmony in the curse which he prayed miMit fall on the Persian — " May he wander in the wilderness where no cities are, no human footstep, where wild beasts feed and the birds wander" — with the description of the abode of the kin<? in his madness in ch. v. 21: "And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; and they fed him with grass like oxen." Moreover, though the designation of the Persian as rj/jblovos in Abyd. may not be formed from the H"JV of Daniel, but derived from old oracles regarding Cyrus diffused throughout the East, as Hiiv. (A7". Krit. Unters. p. 53, under reference to Herod, i. 55, 91) regards as probable, then the harmony of the Chaldean tradition in Abyd. with the narrative in Daniel leaves no doubt that the fact announced by Daniel lies at the foundation of that tradition, but so changed as to be adapted to the mythic glorification of the hero who was celebrated, of whom Megasthenes says that he excelled Hercules in boldness and courage (Hpa/cXeco? akKificorepov yeyovoTdy in Euseb. Prcep. ev. I.e.),

To represent the king's state of morbid psychical bondage and want of freedom as his being moved by God with the spirit of prophecy was natural, from the resemblance which the mantic inspiration in the gestures of the ecstasy showed to the /navla (cf. the combination of K?3r»M mm B*K, Jer. xxix. 26, 2 Kings ix. 11); and in the madness which for a time withdrew the founder of the worldkingdom from the exercise of his sovereignty there might appear as not very remote to the Chaldeans, familiar with the study of portents and prodigies as pointing out the fate of men and of nations, an umen of the future overthrow of the world-power founded by him. As the powerful monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar was transferred to the Hepc-rjs rjfiLovo? not a full generation (25-26 years) after the death of its founder, it might appear conformable to the national vanity of the Chaldeans to give the interpretation to the ominous experience of the great king, that the celebrated hero himself before his death — Oeat ot€g> Brj Karda^eTo^ — had prophesied its fall, and had imprecated on the destroyer great evil, but had wished for himself a happy death before these disasters should come.

But even if there were no such traditional references to the occurrence mentioned in this chapter, yet would the supposition of its invention be excluded by its nature. Although it could be prophesied to Antiochus as an 'E7rifjLavr)s (madman) that he would wholly lose his understanding, yet there remains, as even Hitz. is constrained to confess, the choice of just this form of the madness, the insania zoanthropica, a mystery in the solution of which even the acuteness of this critic is put to shame; so that he resorts to the foolish conjecture that the Maccabean Jew had fabricated the history out of the name 1VJ13U3, since TQJ means oberravit cum perturbatione, and pa, to bind, fasten, while the representation of the king as a tree is derived from the passages Isa. xiv. 12, Ezek. xxxi. 3 ff. To this is to be added the fact, that the tendency attributed to the narrative does not at all fit the circumstances of the Maccabean times. With the general remark that the author wished to hold up as in a mirror before the eyes of Antiochus Epiphanes to what results haughty presumption against the Most High will lead, and how necessary it is penitentially to recognise His power and glory if he would not at length fall a victim to the severest judgments (Bleek), the object of the invention of so peculiar a malady becomes quite inconceivable. Hitzig therefore seeks to explain the tendency more particularly. u The transgressor Nebuchadnezzar, who for his haughtiness is punished with madness, is the type of that arrogant ^Eiriyuavr)^, who also sought unsuitable society, as king degraded himself (Polyb. xxvi. 10), and yet had lately given forth a circular-letter of an altogether different character (1 Mace. i. 41 ff.)."

"If in ver. 28 (31) the loss of the kingdom is placed before the view of Nebuchadnezzar (Antiochus Epiphanes), the passage appears to have been composed at a time when the Maccabees had already taken up arms, and gained the superiority (1 Mace. ii. 42—48)." According to this, we must suppose that the author of this book, at a time when the Jews who adhered to their religion, under the leadership of Mattathias, marched throughout the land to put an end by the force of arms to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphancs, had proposed to the cruel king the full restoration of his supremacy and the willing subjection of the Jews under his government, on the condition that he should recognise the omnipotence of their God. But how does such a proposal of peace agree with the war of the Jews led by Mattathias against the viol t>)? vireprjfyavia*;, against the heathen and transgressors, whose horn (power) they suffer not to prosper (1 Mace. ii. 47, 48)! How with the passionate address of the dvin^ Mattathias, "Fear ye not the words of a sinful man (avhpos afiaprcciXov, i.e. Antiochus), for his glory shall be dung and worms" (ver. 62)? And wherein then consists the resemblance between the Nebuchadnezzar of this chapter and Antiochus Epiphanes? — the latter, a despot who cherished a deadly hatred against the Jews who withstood him; the former, a prince who showed his good-will toward the Jews in the person of Daniel, who was held in high esteem by him. Or is Nebuchadnezzar, in the fact that he gloried in the erection of the great Babylon as the seat of his kingdom, and in that he was exhorted by Daniel to show compassion toward the poor and the oppressed (ver. 24), a type of Antiochus, "who sought improper society, and as king denied himself," i.e., according to Polybius as quoted by Hitzig, delighted in fellowship with the lower classes of society, and spent much treasure amongst the poor handicraftsmen with whom he consorted? Or is there seen in the circularletter of Antiochus, " that in his whole kingdom all should be one people, and each must give up his own laws," any motive for the fabrication of the proclamation in which Nebuchadnezzar relates to all his people the signs and winders which the most high God had done to him, and for which he praised the God of heaven?

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

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

Ch. iii. 31-33 (iv. 1—3). These verses form the introduction1 to the manifesto, and consist of the expression of good wishes, and the announcement of its object. The mode of address here used, accompanied by an expression of a good wish, is the usual form also of the edicts promulgated by the Persian kings; cf. Ezra iv. 17, vii. 12. Regarding the designation of his subjects, cf. ch. iii. 4. KJP.K '??j not "in all lands" (Hav.), but on the whole earth, for Nebuchadnezzar regarded himself as the lord of the whole earth. fcWjDfll K>nx corresponds with the Hebr. DTisbi nhiK; cf. Deut. vi. 22, vii. 19. The experience of this miracle leads to the offering up of praise to God, ver. 33 (ch. iv. 3). The doxology of the second part of ver. 33 occurs again with little variation in ch. iv. 31 (34),

1 The connection of these verses with the third chapter in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles is altogether improper. The originator of the division into chapters appears to have entertained the idea that Nebuchadnezzar had made known the miracle of the deliverance of the three men from the fiery furnace to his subjects by means of a proclamation, according to which the fourth chapter would contain a new royal proclamation different from that former one, — an idea which was rejected by Luther, who has accordingly properly divided the chapters. Conformably to that division, as Chr. B. Michaelis has well remarked, " prius Mud programma in fine capitis tertii excerptum caput sine co?~pore, posterius vero quod capita IV. exhibetur, corpus sine capite, illic enim conspicitur quidem exordium, sed sine narratione, hie vero narratio qiridem, sed sine exordio." Quite arbitrarily Ewald has, according to the LXX., who have introduced the words ' Apx,v) r-?tg tTriero'kijs before ch. iii. 31, and "Erovg oktuxcuhx,<x.Tou Tits (la.o'hi.icx.; Nocfiovxalovoaop uttsu before ch. iv. 1, enlarged this passage by the superscription: " In the 28th year of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar, king Nebuchadnezzar wrote thus to all the nations, communities, and tongues who dwell in the whole earth."

vii. 14, 18, and is met with also in Ps. cxlv. 13, which bears the name of David; while the rendering of W T0^ from generation to generation, i.e. as long as generations exist, agrees with Ps. lxxii. 5.

With ch. iv. 1 (4) Nebuchadnezzar begins the narration of his wonderful experience. When he was at rest in his palace and prospering, he had a dream as he lay upon his bed which made him afraid and perplexed. rfWj quiet, in undisturbed, secure prosperity. |3jn, properly growing green, of the fresh, vigorous growth of a tree, to which the happiness and prosperity of men are often compared; e.g. in Ps. lii. 10' (8), xcii. 11 (10). Here plainly the word is chosen with reference to the tree which had been seen in the dream. From this description of his prosperity it appears that after his victories Nebuchadnezzar enjoyed the fruit of his exploits, was firmly established on his throne, and, as appears from ver. 26 (29) f., a year after his dream could look with pleasure and pride on the completion of his splendid buildings in Babylon; and therefore this event belongs to the last half of his reign.

Ver. 2 (ch. iv. 5). While in this state of security and peace, he was alarmed by a dream. The abrupt manner in which the matter is here introduced well illustrates the unexpected suddenness of the event itself. H»T1«?, thoughts, from Win, to think, to meditate; in the Mishna and in Syr. images of the imagination; here, images in a dream. The words '33?to?y PY1"1.? are more properly taken as a passage by themselves with the verb, I had (I saw), supplied, than connected with the following noun to wna\ Regarding *B>K"i >1Tn see under ch. ii. 28. On this matter Chr. B. Michaelis has well remarked: u Licet somnii inter pretationem nondum intelligeret, tamen sensit, infortunium sibi isthoc somnio portendi"

Yer. 3 f. (ch. iv. 6). Therefore Nebuchadnezzar commanded the wise men of Babylon (cf. ii. 2) to be called to him, that they might interpret to him the dream. But they could not do so, although on this occasion he only asked them to give the interpretation, and not, as in ch. ii. 2, at the same time the dream itself. Instead of the Kethiv |y?y, the Keri here and at ch, v. 8 gives the contracted form PpJjJ, which became possible only by the shortening of T, as in jn^'n ch. iii. 16. The form pTjW is differently explained; apparently it must be the plur. masc. instead of rjn*$, and HpN *W, to the last, a circumlocution of the adverb at last. That |*]pK means posterus, and PJN alius, Hitzig has not yet furnished the proof. The question, wherefore Daniel came only when the Chaldean wise men could not interpret the dream, is not answered satisfactorily by the remark of Zundel, p. 16, that it was the natural course that first they should be called who by virtue of their wisdom should interpret the dream, and that then, after their wisdom had failed, Daniel should be called, who had gained for himself a name by revelations not proceeding from the class of the Magi. For if Nebuchadnezzar had still the events of ch. ii. in view, he would without doubt have called him forthwith, since it certainly did not come into his mind, in his anxiety on accbunt of his dream, first to try the natural wisdom of his Magi. The objection offered by Hitzig, that the king does not go at once to his chief magician, ver. 6 (9), who had already (ch. ii.) shown himself to be the best interpreter of dreams, is not thereby confuted; still less is it by the answer that the custom was not immediately to call the president of the Magi (Jahn), or that in the haste he was not at once thought of (Hav.). Though it may have been the custom not to call the chief president in every particular case, yet a dream by the king, which had filled him with terror, was an altogether unusual occurrence. If Daniel, therefore, was in this case first called only when the natural wisdom of the Magi had proved its inadequacy, the reason of this was, either that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten what had occurred several years before (ch. ii.), and since the chief president of the wise men was only in special cases called on for counsel, therefore only the incorporated cultivators of the magician's art were called, and only when these could not accomplish that which was asked of them was the xmief president Daniel required to come, — or it lay in this, that the king, afraid of receiving an unwelcome answer, purposely adopted the course indicated. Kranichfeld has decided in favour of this latter supposition. " The king," he thinks, "knew from the dream itself that the tree (ver. 8) reaching unto heaven and extending to the end of the whole earth represented a royal person ruling the earth, who would come to ruin on account of the God of the Jews, and would remain in his ruin till there was an acknowledgment of the Almighty; cf. vers. 13, 14 (16, 17). There was this reason for the king's keeping Daniel the Jew at a distance from this matter of the dream. Without doubt he would think himself intended by the person concerned in the dream; and since the special direction which the dream took (ver. 14) set forth as its natural point of departure an actual relation corresponding to that of the king to the God of Daniel, it must have occasioned to him a well-grounded fear (cf. ver. 24), as in the case of Ahab, the idolater, towards Micali, the propliet of Jehovah (cf. 1 Kings xxii. 8), of a severe judgment, leading him to treat with any other regarding his matter rather than with Daniel." For the establishment of this view Kranichfeld refers to the "king's subsequent address to Daniel, designed especially to appease and captivate (vers. 5, 6 [8, 9]), as well as the visibly mild and gentle deportment of the king toward the worshipper of the God of the Jews." This proceeding tending to captivate appears in the appellation, Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god; for Nebuchadnezzar, by the addition of a name of honour in commemoration of the celebrated god of the kingdom, intended to show favour toward him, as also in the expression which follows, In whom is the spirit of the holy gods, which Nebuchadnezzar repeats in the address. But neither in the one nor the other of these considerations can we perceive the intention of specially captivating and appeasing the Jew Daniel; — not in the latter of these expressions, for two reasons: 1. because Nebuchadnezzar uses the expression not merely in the address to Daniel, but also in the references to him which go before; had he designed it to captivate him, he would have used these words of honour only in the address to him; 2. because the expression, u in whom is the spirit of the holy gods," is so truly heathenish, that the Jew, who knew only one God, could not feel himself specially flattered by having the spirit of the holy gods ascribed to him.

If Nebuchadnezzar had had the intention of gaining the favour of Daniel, he would certainly, according to his confession (ch. ii. 47), have attributed to him the spirit of the God of gods, the Lord of lords, — a confession which even as a heathen he could utter. We cannot give the king so little credit for understanding as to suppose that he meant to show1 a special favour to Daniel, who held so firmly the confession of his father's God, by reminding him that he had given him the name Belteshazzar after the name of his god Bel, whom the Jews abhorred as an idol. Thus the reminding him of this name, as well as the saying that he possessed the spirit of the holy gods, is not accounted for by supposing that he intended to appease and captivate Daniel. In showing the unsatisfactoriness of this interpretation of these expressions, we have set aside also the explanation of the reason, wThich is based upon it, why Daniel was called in to the king only

1 Calvin here rightly rem'arks: non dubiura est, quin hoc nomen graviter vulneraverit animum prophetx.

after the Chaldean wise men; and other weighty considerations can also be adduced against it. First, the edict contains certainly nothing which can give room to the conjecture that Nebuchadnezzar entertained no true confidence, but much rather want of confidence, in him. The comparison of Nebuchadnezzar also with king Ahab in his conduct toward the prophet Micah is not suitable, because Ahab was not a mere polytheist as Nebuchadnezzar, but much rather, like Antiochus Epiphanes, persecuted the servants of Jehovah in his kingdom, and at the instigation of his heathenish wife Jezebel wished to make the worship of Baal the only religion of his kingdom. Finally, the relation of the dream does not indicate that Nebuchadnezzar, if he knew or suspected that the dream referred to himself as ruler over the whole earth, thought that he would come to ruin because of the God of the Jews. For that this does not follow from ver. 14 (17), is shown not only by the divine visitation that happened to the king, as mentioned in ver. 27 (30) in fulfilment of the dream, but also by the exhortation to the king with which Daniel closes the interpretation, u to break off sin by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor" (ver. 24).

Thus there only remains this supposition, that the former revelations of God to the king had passed away from his heart and his memory; which was not surprising in the successful founder and ruler of a world-kingdom, if we consider that from twrenty-five to thirty years must have passed away since Daniel interpreted to him his dream in the second year of his reign, and from ten to fifteen had passed since the miracle of the deliverance of the three from the burning fiery furnace. But if those earlier revelations of God were obscured in his heart by the fulness of his prosperity, and for ten years Daniel had no occasion to show himself to him as a revealer of divine secrets, then it is not difficult to conceive how, amid the state of disquietude into which the dream recorded in this chapter had brought him, he only gave the command to summon all the wise men of Babylon without expressly mentioning their president, so that they came to him first, and Daniel was called only when the natural wisdom of the Chaldeans had shown itself helpless.

The naming of Daniel by his Hebrew name in the manifesto, intended for all the people of the kingdom as well as for the Jews, is simply intended, as in ch. ii. 29, to designate the interpreter of the dream, as distinguished from the native wise men of Babylon, as a Jew, and at the same time as a worshipper of the most high God; and by the addition, " whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god," Nebuchadnezzar intends to indicate that Daniel by this name was brought into fellowship with his chief god Bel, and that not only -as a worshipper of the God of the Jews, but also of the great god Bel, he had become a partaker of the spirit of the holy gods. But by the holy gods Nebuchadnezzar does not understand Jehovah, the Holy One, deriving this predicate "holy," as M. Geier says, ex theologia Israelitica, and the plur. " gods " denoting, as Calovius supposes, the mysterium pluralitatis personarum; but he speaks of the holy gods, as Jerome, Calvin, and Grotius supposed, as a heathen (ut idololatra) in a polytheistic sense. For that the revelation of supernatural secrets belonged to the gods, and that the man who had this power must possess the spirit of the gods, all the heathen acknowledged. Thus Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 38) judged regarding Joseph, and thus also the Chaldeans say to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii. 11) that only the gods could know his dream. The truth lying at the foundation of this belief was acknowledged by Joseph before Pharaoh, as also by Daniel before the Chaldean king, for both of them declared before the heathen kings that the interpretation" of their dreams was not in the power of man, but could come only from God (Gen. xli. 16; Dan. ii. 28). But when in the case before us Nebuchadnezzar speaks of the holy gods, he means by the expression the ayaOoSat/jLoves as opposed to the /caKoSal/jLoves, using the word holy of the good gods, probably from his conversation with Daniel on the subject.

In the address, ver. 6, he calls Belteshazzar NJ3p"in 2*1, master of the magicians, probably from the special branch of Chaldean wisdom with which Daniel was particularly conversant, at the same time that he was chief president over all the magicians. WK, to oppress, to compel any one, to do violence to him; here, to make trouble, difficulty.

Vers. 7-14 (10-17). Nebuchadnezzar in these verses tells his dream. The first part of ver. 7 is an absolute nominal sentence: the visions of my head lying upon my bed, then I saw, etc. — A tree stood in the midst of the earth. Although already very high, yet it became always the greater and the stronger, so that it reached even unto heaven and was visible to the ends of the earth. Ver. 8. The perf. nzn and *Ti?fl express not its condition, but its increasing greatness and strength. In the second hemistich the imperf. WMD*, as the form of the striving movement, corresponds to them. Ch. B. Michaelis properly remarks, that Nebuchadnezzar saw the tree gradually grow and become always the stronger. rritn? the sight) visibleness. Its visibility reached unto the ends of the earth. The LXX. have correctly 97 opaais avrov; so the Vulgate; while Theodotion, with to kvtos avrov. gives merely the sense, its largeness, or dome. Hitzig altogether improperly refers to the Arab. £;^; for

*)*>*) from;»>., corresponds neither with the Hebr. nrn, nor does it mean extent, but comprehension, embracing, enclosure, according to which the meanings, tractus, latus, regio, given in the Arab. Lex., are to be estimated.

Ver. 9 (12). At the same time the tree abounded with leaves and fruit, so that birds and beasts found shadow, protection, and nourishment from it. N^, neither great nor many, but powerful, expressing the quantity and the greatness of the fruit. The nn the Masoretes have rightly connected with Njb?, to which it is joined by Maqqeph. The meaning is not: food was in it, the tree had food for all (Hav., Maur., and others), but: (it had) food for all in it, i.e. dwelling within its district (Kran., Klief.). The words, besides, do not form an independent sentence, but are only a further view of the WW (Kran.), and return in the end of the verse into further expansion, while the first and the second clauses of the second hemistich give the further expansion of the first clause in the verse. <?P^, wnbram captavit, enjoyed the shadow; in Targg. the Aphel has for the most part the meaning obumbravit. The Kethiv (V1T is not to be changed, since the P.?.V is gen. comm. The Keri is conform, to ver. 186, where the word is construed as fern. The expression all flesh comprehends the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, but is chosen with reference to men represented under this image. For the tree, mighty, reaching even to the heavens, and visible over the whole earth, is an easily recognised symbol of a world-ruler whose power stretches itself over the whole earth. The description of the growth and of the greatness of the tree reminds us of the delineation of Pharaoh and his power under the figure of a mighty cedar of Lebanon, cf. Ezek. xxxi. 3 ff., also Ezek. xvii. 22 ff., xix. 10 ff. The comparison of the growth of men to the growth of the trees is very frequent in biblical and other writings.

Ver. 10 (13). By the words u I saw," etc., a new incident of the dream is introduced. "A watcher and an holy one came down from heaven." B^.i^ with the explic. 1, even, and that too, brings it before us in a very expressive way that the "vy was an " holy one." T*y is not to be combined with VS, a messenger, but is derived from "fiy, to watch, and corresponds with the Hebr. "iy, Song v. 2, Mai. ii. 12, and signifies not keeping watch, but being watchful, one who is awake, as the scholium to the elp of Theodotion in the Cod. Alex, explains it: iyprfyopos real ciypvirvo^. Similarly Jerome remarks: " significat angelos, quod semper vigilent et ad Dei imperium sint parati" From, this place is derived the name of iyprjyopos for the higher angels, who watch and slumber not, which is found in the book of Enoch and in other apocryphal writings, where it is used of good and of bad angels or demons. The designation of the angel as "VJJ is peculiar to this passage in the O. T. This gives countenance to the conjecture that it is a word associated with the Chaldee doctrine of the gods. Kliefoth quite justly, indeed, remarks, that this designation does not come merely from the lips of Nebuchadnezzar, but is uttered also by the holy watcher himself (ver. 14), as well as by Daniel; and he draws thence the conclusion, that obviously the holy watcher himself used this expression first of himself and the whole council of his companions, that Nebuchadnezzar used the same expression after him (ver. 10), and that Daniel again adopted it from Nebuchadnezzar. Thence it follows that by the word angel we are not to understand a heathen deity; for as certainly as, according to this narrative, the dream was given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, so certainly was it a messenger of God who brought it. But from this it is not to be concluded that the name accords with the religious conceptions of Nebuchadnezzar and of the Babylonians. Regarding the Babylonian gods Diod. Sic. ii. 30, says: u Under the five planets (= gods) are ranked thirty others whom they call the counselling gods (#eot ftovXaioi,), the half of whom have the oversight of the regions under the earth, and the other half oversee that which goes on on the earth, and among men, and in heaven. Every ten days one of these is sent as a messenger of the stars from the upper to the lower, and at the same time also one from the lower to the upper regions."

If, according to ver. 14, the f^Jf constitute a deliberative council forming a resolution regarding the fate of men, and then one of these PTV comes down and makes known the resolution to the king, the conclusion is tenable that the VyV correspond to the 6eol fiovkaioi of the Babylonians. The divine inspiration of the dream corresponds with this idea. The correct thought lay at the foundation of the Chaldean representation of the 6eol ftovXcuoi, that the relation of God to the world was mediate through the instrumentality of heavenly beings. The biblical revelation recognises these mediating beings, and calls them messengers of God, or angels and holy ones. Yea, the Scripture speaks of the assembling of angels before the throne of God, in which assemblies God forms resolutions regarding the fate of men which the angels carry into execution; cf. Job i. 6 ff., 1 Kings xxii. 19 ff., Ps. lxxxix. 8 (7). Accordingly, if Nebuchadnezzar's dream came from God, we can regard the *vy as an angel of God who belonged to the D^KHj? TiD around the throne of God (Ps. lxxxix. 8). But this angel announced himself to the Chaldean king not as a messenger of the most high God, not as an angel in the sense of Scripture, but he speaks (ver. 14) of p/JJ J™> of a resolution of the watchers, s,fatum of the 6eol ftovXaiot, who have the oversight of this world. The conception p/V rnta is not biblical, but Babylonian heathen. According to the doctrine of Scripture, the angels do not determine the fate of men, but God alone does, around whom the angels stand as ministering spirits to fulfil His commands and make known His counsel to men. The angel designates to the Babylonian king the divine resolution regarding that judgment which would fall upon him from God to humble him for his pride as u the resolution of the watchers," that it might be announced to him in the way most easily understood by him as a divine judgment. On the other hand, one may not object that a messenger of God cannot give himself the name of a heathen deity, and that if Nebuchadnezzar had through misunderstanding given to the bringer of the dream the name of one of his heathen gods, Daniel ought, in interpreting the dream, to have corrected the misunderstanding, as Klief. says. For the messenger of God obviated this misunderstanding by the explanation that the matter was a decree of the watchers, to acknowledge the living God, that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever He will (ver. 14), whereby he distinctly enough announces himself as a messenger of the Most High, i.e. of the living God. To go yet further, and to instruct the king that his religious conceptions of the gods, the p^V, or Oeol fiovXatoL, were erroneous, inasmuch as, besides tire Highest, the only God, there are no other gods, but only angels, who are no #eo/, but creatures of God, was not at all necessary for the purpose of his message. This purpose was only to lead Nebuchadnezzar to an acknowledgment of the Most High, i.e. to an acknowledgment that the Most High rules as King of heaven over the kingdom of men. Now, since this was declared by the messenger of God, Daniel in interpreting frhe dream to the king needed to say nothing more than what he said in vers. 21, '22 (24. 25), where he designates the matter as a resolution of the Most High, and thereby indirectly corrects the view of the king regarding the u resolutions of the watchers," and gives the king distinctly to understand that the humiliation announced to him was determined,1 not by the 6eol fiovXaiot of the Babylonians, but by the only true God, whom Daniel and his people worshipped. For Nebuchadnezzar designates "Vy as tMf> in the same sense in which, in ver. 5, he speaks of the holy gods.

Ver. 11 (14). The messenger of God cried with might (cf» iii. 4), u as a sign of the strong, firm utterance of a purpose " (Kran.). The command, Hew it down, is not given to the angels (Iliiv., Hitz., Auberl.). The plur. here is to be regarded as impersonal: the tree shall be cut down. riRK stands for HIW according to the analogy of the verbs 3d gutL, from "TO, to fall off, spoken of withering leaves. In consequence of the destruction of the tree, the beasts which found shelter under it and amoncr its branches flee away. Yet the tree shall not be altogether destroyed, but its stock (ver. 12) shall remain in the earth, that it may again afterwards spring up and grow into a tree. The stem is not the royalty, the dynasty which shall remain in the house of Nebuchadnezzar (Hav.), but the tree with its roots is Nebuchadnezzar, who shall as king be cut down, but shall as a man remain, and again shall grow into a king. But the stock must be bound u with a band of iron and brass." With these words, to complete which we must supply *p3P from the preceding context, the language passes from the type to the person represented by it. This transition is in the last part of the verse: with the beasts of the field let him have his portion in the grass of the earth; for this cannot be said of the stock with the roots, therefore these words are in the interpretation also (ver. 22) applied directly to Nebuchad-

1 "We must altogether reject the assertion of Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Maur., that the language of this verse regarding the angel sent to Nebuchadnezzar is formed in accordance with the Persian representation of the seven Amschaspands (Amescha-gpenta), since, according to the judgment of all those most deeply conversant with Parsism, the doctrine of the Amescha-cpenta does not at all occur in the oldest parts of the Avesta, and the Avesta altogether is not so old as that the Babylonian doctrine of the gods can be shown to be dependent on the Zend doctrine of the Parsees.

nezzar. Eut even in the preceding passages this transition is not doubtful. Neither the words in the grass of the field, nor the being wet with the dew of heaven, are suitable as applied to the stock of the tree, because both expressions in that case would affirm nothing; still less is the band of iown and brass congruous, for the trunk of a tree is not wont to be surrounded with bands of iron in order to prevent its being rent in pieces and completely destroyed. Thus the words refer certainly to Nebuchadnezzar; but the fastening in brass and iron is not, with Jerome and others, to be understood of the binding of the madman with chains, but figuratively or spiritually of the withdrawal of free self-determination through the fetter of madness; cf. the fetters of affliction, Ps. cvii. 10, Job xxxvi. 8. With this fettering also agrees the going forth under the open heaven among the grass of the field, and the being wet with the dew of heaven, without our needing thereby to think of the maniac as wandering about without any oversight over him.

Ver. 13 (16). Here the angel declares by what means Nebuchadnezzar shall be brought into this condition. His heart shall be changed from a man's heart, according to the following passage, into the heart of a beast. JO N2$, to change, to make different from, so that it is no longer what it was. The Kethiv N^'UX is the Hebr.

form for the Chald. Ntt^K of the KerL here, as in ver. 14, where along with it also stands the Hebr. plur. form ClPJK. NB'iJtf stands here for the abbreviated comparison frequent in Hebr., N^iJN 22b jp, and the 3d pers. plur.fa&\ impers. for the passive. 22? is the heart, the centre of the intelligent soul-life. The heart of man is dehumanized when his soul becomes like that of a beast; for the difference between the heart of a man and that of a beast has its foundation in the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a beast (Delitzsch, bibL Psych, p. 252). And seven times shall pass over him, viz. during the continuance of the circumstances described; i.e. his condition of bondage shall last for seven times. Following the example of the LXX. and of Josephus, many ancient and recent interpreters, down to Maur., Hitz., and Kran., understood by the word P^V years, because the times in ch. vii. 25, xii. 7, are also years, and because in ver. 26 mention is made of twelve months, and thereby the time is defined as one year. But from ver. 26 the duration of the p^V cannot at all be concluded, and in ch. vii. 25 and xii. 7 the times are not years. PJV designates generally a definite period of time, whose length or duration may be very different. ind iture of the history oi tl relopment of the kingdom of I, and of all tli and phenomena significant for it immert*aMB vision of the biblical lical Numbei in the acti in judgment and in n punishments, < i with tli— economy icting then times11 is the duration of the divine punishment which was cre< Nebucha I with the months, lid, and cannot at all be determine T ition that they wei

N bnchadnexzar was again. a thing which very rarely ocean afl long ■ continua jrchical di ment with the words that the matter was unchangeably decreed, for this purpose, that men might be led I the Buprem of the M 9t llii^h over the kiii<rs of the earth. The first two ages have no verb, and thus the verb. 6ub$tant, must be supplied. Accordingly we must not translate: by the d<cree of the watchers Uths message^ i.e. is it delivered (Kran.), nor: the decree is included in the fatt\ the unalterable will of Heaven (Iliiv.); but 3' denotes the department within which the rntt lies, and is to be translated: " the message consists in, or rests on9 the decree of the icatcliers." ■"nT.^) the unchangeable decision, the decretum divinum, quod homini aut rebus humanis tanquam inevitabile impositum est (BuxtoiTs Lex. talm. rabb. p. 419), the Fatum in which the Chaldeans believed. Regarding Dsns see under ch. iii. 16. Here the fundamental meaning, the message, that which is to happen, can be maintained. The second member is synonymous, and affirms the same thing in another way. The word, the utterance of the holy ones, i.e. the watchers (see under ver. 10), is ^nb&ftB^, the matter. The meaning lying in the etymon, request or question, is not here suitable, but only the derivative meaning, matter as the object of the request or inquiry. The thing meant is that which is decided regarding the tree, that it should be cut down, etc.

This is so clear, that a pronoun referring to it appears superfluous.

**] lYlTl ny? till the matter that... to the end that; not — **! "l?, ver. 22, because here no defining of time goes before. The changing of *W into PV (Hitz.) is -unnecessary and arbitrary. That the living may know, etc. The expression is general, because it is not yet said who is to be understood by the tree which should be cut down. This general expression is in reality correct; for the king comes by experience to this knowledge, and so all will attain to it who consider this. The two last passages of ver. 14 express more fully how the Most High manifests His supremacy over, the kingdom of men. The Kethiv iTpy is shortened from N?^ and in the Keri is yet further shortened by the rejection of the *; cf. ch. v. 21, vii. 4ff., etc.

Ver. 15 (18). Nebuchadnezzar adds to his communication of his dream a command to Daniel to interpret it. The form ^7^3 (its interpretation) is the old orthography and the softened form for TO (cf. ver. 6).

As Daniel at once understood the interpretation of the dream, he was for a moment so astonished that he could not speak for terror at the thoughts which moved his soul. This amazement seized him because he wished well to the king, and yet he must now announce to him a weighty judgment from God.

Ver. 16. The punctuation Dplfil^K for DDifi^;K is Syriac, as in the Hebr. ch. viii. 27; cf. Winer's ' Chald. Gram. § 25, 2. ny^3 *nn means, not about an hour (Mich., Hitz., Kran., etc.), but as it were an instant, a moment. Regarding nj?^? see under ch. iii. 6. The king perceives the astonishment of Daniel, and remarks that he has found the interpretation. Therefore he asks him, with friendly address, to tell him it without reserve. Daniel then communicates it in words of affectionate interest for the welfare of the king. The words, let the dream be to thine enemies, etc., do not mean: it is a dream, a prophecy, such as the enemies of the king might ungraciously wish (Klief.), but: may the dream ivithits interpretation be to thine enemies, may it be fulfilled to them or refer to them (Hav., Hitz., etc.). The Kethiv *&OG is the regular formation from N")E with the suffix, for which the Masoretes have substituted the later Talmudic-Tar£. form "io. With regard to ^WV with the cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. § 34, III. That Nebuchadnezzar (ver. 16) in his account speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion, either that another spake of him, and that thus the document is not genuine (Hitz.), nor yet the conclusion that this verse includes an historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document; for similar forms of expression are often found in such documents: cf. Ezra vii. 13-15, Esth. viii. 7, 8.

Ver. 17 (20). Daniel interprets to the king his dream, repeating only here and there in an abbreviated form the substance of it in the same words, and then declares its reference to the king. With vers. 17 (20) and 18 (21) cf. vers. 8 (11) and 9 (12). The fuller description of the tree is subordinated to the relative clause, which thou hast seen, so that the subject is connected by Kin (ver. 19), representing the verb, subst., according to rule, with the predicate N}^**. The interpretation of the separate statements regarding the tree is also subordinated in relative clauses to the subject. For the Kethiv T\ST\ = W3"l, the Keri gives the shortened form ni\ with the elision of the third radical, analogous to the shortening of the following HDD for USD. To the call of the angel to li cut down the tree," etc. (ver. 20, cf. vers. 10-13), Daniel gives the interpretation, ver. 21, u This is the decree of the Most High which is come upon the king, that he shall be driven from men, and dwell among the beasts," etc. bv Ktt» = Hebr. 5>? Kta. The indefinite plur. form PTJD stands instead of the passive, as the following $ pvyp) and fh^O, cf. under ch. iii. 4. Thus the subject remains altogether indefinite, and one has neither to think on men who will drive him from their society, etc., nor of angels, of whom, perhaps, the expulsion of the king may be predicated, but scarcely the feeding on grass and being wet with dew.

Ver. 23 (26). In this verse the emblem and its interpretation are simply placed together, so that we must in thought repeat the Rl^a JOT from ver. 21 before Sjnd>0. KBJi>, DKj? do not in this place mean to stand, to exist, to remain, for this does not agree with the following *)"$?; for until Nebuchadnezzar comes to the knowledge of the supremacy of God, his dominion shall not continue, but rest, be withdrawn, ttip, to rise up, has here an inchoative meaning, again rise up. To?&?& (do rule) there is to be added from ver. 22 (25) the clause, over the kingdom of men. From this passage we have an explanation of the use of NJ»B>', heaven, for KJ?P, the Most High, God of heaven, whence after- wards arose the use of ftacrikeia tojv ovpavwv for fSaaCkeia rod Oeov.

Ver. 24 (27). Daniel adds to his interpretation of the dream the warning to the king to break off his sins by righteousness and mercy, so that his tranquillity may be lengthened. Daniel knew nothing of a heathen Fatum, but he knew that the judgments of God were directed against men according to their conduct, and that punishment threatened could only be averted by repentance; cf. Jer. xviii. 7 ff.; Jonah iii. 5 ff.; Isa. xxxviii. 1 f. This way of turning aside the threatened judgment stood open also for Nebuchadnezzar, particularly as the time of the fulfilment of the dream was not fixed, and thus a space was left for repentance. The counsel of Daniel is interpreted by Berth., Hitz., and others, after Theodotion, the Vulgate, and many Church Fathers and Rabbis, as teaching the doctrine of holiness by works held by the later Jews, for they translate it: redeem thy sins by well-doing (Hitz.: buy freedom from thy sins by alms), and thy transgressions by showing mercy to the poor} But this translation of the first passage is verbally false; for PIS does not mean to redeem, to ransom, and njTO does not mean alms or charity. P"i3 means to break off, to break in pieces, hence to separate, to disjoin, to put at a distance; see under Gen. xxi. 40. And though in the Targg. p"ia is used for 7^3, niB? to loosen, to unbind, of redeeming, ransoming of the first-born, an inheritance or any other valuable possession, yet this use of the word by no means accords with sins as the object, because sins are not goods which one redeems or ransoms so as to retain them for his own use. *ttn P"1-^1 can onty mean to throw away sins, to set one's self free from sins. ^iJ^V nowhere in the O. T. means well-doing or alms. This meaning the self-righteous Rabbis first gave to the word in their writings. Daniel recommends the king to practise righteousness as the chief virtue of a ruler in contrast to the unrighteousness of the despots, as Hgstb., Iliiv., Hofm., and Klief. have justly observed. To this also the second member of the verse corresponds. As the king should practise righteousness toward all his subjects, so should he exercise mercy

1 Theodot. translates: kocI toc$ tk/xocprtag gov iu t"h£Y}tuoGVvocig T^vrpuaut, Kcti rdg oioiKicc; gov tv o'lKTippois mvviTav. The Vulg.: ct peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniquitates tuas misericordiis pauperum. Accordingly, the Catholic Church regards this passage as a locus clasrictts for the doctrine of the merit of works, against which the Apologia Con/. August, first set forth the right exposition.

toward the oppressed, the miserable, the poor. Both of these virtues are frequently named together, e.g. Isa. xi. 4, Ps. lxxii. 4, Isa. xli. 2, as virtues of the Messiah. S|W] is the plur. of Wj, as the parallel ^\\V shows, and the Keri only the later abbreviation or defective suffix-formation, as ch. ii. 4, v. 10.

The last clause of this verse is altogether misunderstood by Theodotion, who translates it tW<? earcu fMatcpodvpos tols irapanrrcofiaa iv gov 6 0eo?, and by the Vulgate, where it is rendered by forsitan ignoscet delictis tuis, and by many older interpreters, where they expound K|1K in the sense of t^.SK T)^, patience, and derive ynbw from rhft to fail, to go astray (cf. ch. iii. 29). K3"]H means continuance, or length of time, as ch. vii. 12; SW, rest, safety, as the Hebr. nw? here the peaceful prosperity of life; and ][}, neither ecce nor forsitan, si forte, but simply if, as always in the book of Daniel.

Daniel places before the king, as the condition of the continuance of prosperity of life, and thereby implicite of the averting of the threatened punishment, reformation of life, the giving up of injustice and cruelty towards the poor, and the practice of righteousness and mercy.

Yers. 25-30 (28-33). The fulfilling of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar narrates the fulfilment of the dream altogether objectively, so that he speaks of himself in the third person. Berth., Hitz., and others find here that the author falls out of the role of the king into the narrative tone, and thus betrays the fact that some other than the kin^ framed the edict. But this conelusion is opposed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar from ver. 31 speaks of his recovery again in the first person. Thus it is beyond doubt that the change of person has its reason in the matter itself. Certainly it could not be in this that Nebuchadnezzar thought it unbecoming to speak in his own person of his madness; for if he had had so tender a regard for his own person, he would not have published the whole occurrence in a manifesto addressed to his subjects. But the reason of his speaking of his madness in the third person, as if some other one were narrating it, lies simply in this, that in that condition he was not Ich = Ego (Kliefoth). With the return of the Ich, I, on his recovery from his madness, Nebuchadnezzar begins again to narrate in the first person (ver. 31).

statement regarding the fulfilment of the dream to the king, which is then extended from ver. 26 to 30. At the end of twelve months, i.e. after the expiry of twelve months from the time of the dream, the king betook himself to his palace at Babylon, i.e. to the flat roof of the palace; cf. 2 Sam. xi. 2. The addition at Babylon does not indicate that the king was then living at a distance from Babylon, as Berth., v. Leng., Maur., and others imagine, but is altogether suitable to the matter, because Nebuchadnezzar certainly had palaces outside of Babylon, but it is made with special reference to the language of the king which follows regarding the greatness of Babylon. n:y means here not simply to begin to speak, but properly to answer, and suggests to us a foregoing colloquy of the king with himself in his own mind. Whether one may conclude from that, in connection with the statement of time, after twelve months, that Nebuchadnezzar, exactly one year after he had received the important dream, was actively engaging himself regarding that dream, must remain undetermined, and can be of no use to a psychological explanation of the occurrence of the dream. The thoughts which Nebuchadnezzar expresses in ver. 26 (29) are not favourable to such a supposition. Had the king remembered that dream and its interpretation, he would scarcely have spoken so proudly of his splendid city which he had built as he does in ver. 27 (30).

When he surveyed the great and magnificent city from the top of his palace, u pride overcame him," so that he dedicated the building of this great city as the house of his kingdom to the might of his power and the honour of his majesty. From the addition Nn^l it does not follow that this predicate was a standing Epitheton ornans of Babylon, as with nin non, Amos vi. 2, and other towns of Asia; for although Pausanias and Strabo call Babylon fxeyaXv and fieyLarrj 7roXt9, yet it bears this designation as a surname in no ancient author. But in Rev. xiv. 8 this predicate, quoted from the passage before us, is given to Babylon, and in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar it quite corresponds to the self-praise of his great might by which he had built Babylon as the residence of a great king, nji designates, as n:n more frequently, not the building or founding of a city, for the founding of Babylon took place in the earliest times after the Flood (Gen. xi.), and was dedicated to the god Belus, or the mythic Semiramis, i.e. in the pre-historic time; but HJ3 means the building up, the enlargement, the adorning of the city wD f)w, for the house of the kingdom, i.e. for a royal reai- dence; cf. the related expression ^dpdd JV3, Amos vii. 13. 1V2 stands in this connection neither for town nor for?2S\} (ver. 26), but has the meaning divelling-place. The royalty of the Babylonian kingdom has its dwelling-place^ its seat, in Babylon, the capital of the kingdom.

With reference to the great buildings of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, vide" the statements of Berosus in Josephi Ant. x. 11, 1, and con. Ap. i. 19, and of Abydenus in Eusebii prcepar. evang. ix. 41, and Chron. i. p. 59; also the delineation of these buildings in Duncker's GescJi. des Alterih. i. p. 854 ff. The presumption of this language appears in the words, u by the strength of my might, and for the splendour (honour) of my majesty." Thus Nebuchadnezzar describes himself as the creator of his kingdom and of its glory, while the building up of his capital as a residence bearing witness to his glory and his might pointed at the same time to the duration of his dynasty. This proud utterance is immediately followed by his humiliation by the omnipotent God. A voice fell from heaven.?33 as in Isa. ix. 7, of the sudden coming of a divine revelation. P.*?$ for the passive, as ch. iii. 4. The perf. nny denotes the matter as finished. At the moment when Nebuchadnezzar heard in his soul the voice from heaven, the prophecy begins to be fulfilled, the king becomes deranged, and is deprived of his royalty.

Vers. 29, 30 (32, 33). Here the contents of the prophecy, ver. 22 (25), are repeated, and then in ver. 30 (33) it is stated that the word regarding Nebuchadnezzar immediately began to be fulfilled. On KnyB* P13, cf. ch. iii. 6. nQD, from *pD, to go to an end. The prophecy goes to an end when it is realized, is fulfilled. The fulfilling is related in the words of the prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar is driven from among men, viz. by his madness, in which he fled from intercourse with men, and lived under the open air of heaven as a beast among the beasts, eating grass like the cattle; and his person was so neglected, that his hair became like the eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws. P7?^3 and P.^Yr are abbreviated comparisons; vide under ver. 13. That this condition was a peculiar appearance of the madness is expressly mentioned in ver. 31 (34), where the recovery is designated as the restoration of his understanding;.

This malady, in which men regard themselves as beasts and imitate their manner of life, is called insania zoanthropica, or, in the case of those who think themselves wolves, hjcanthropia. The condition is described in a manner true to nature. Even a as to the eating of grass," as G. Rosch, in the Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xv. p. 521, remarks, u there is nothing to perplex or that needs to be explained. It is a circumstance that has occurred in recent times, as e.g. in the case of a woman in the Wiirttemberg asylum for the insane." Historical documents regarding this form of madness have been collected by Trusen in his Sitten, Gebr. u. Krank. der alten Hebrder, p. 205 f., 2d ed., and by Friedreich in Zur Bibel, i. p. 308 f.1

Vers. 31-34 (34-37). Nebuchadnezzar s recovery, his restoration to his kingdom, and his thankful recognition of the Lord in heaven.

The second part of the prophecy was also fulfilled. " At the end of the days," i.e. after the expiry of the seven times, Nebuchadnezzar lifted up his eyes to heaven, — the first sign of the return of human consciousness, from which, however, we are not to conclude, with Hitzig, that before this, in his madness, he went on allfours like an ox. Nebuchadnezzar means in these words only to say that his first thought was a look to heaven, whence help came to him; cf. Ps. cxxiii. 1 f. Then his understanding immediately returned to him. The first thought he entertained was to thank God, to praise Him as the ever-living One, and to recognise the eternity of His sway. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and praises God as the a ever-living One," because He had again given to him his life, which had been lost in his madness; cf. ch. vi. 27 (26).

Yer. 316, cf. with eh. iii. 33 (iv. 1). The eternity of the supremacy of God includes His omnipotence as opposed to the weakness of the inhabitants of earth. This eternity Nebuchadnezzar praises in ver. 32 (35) in words which remind us of the expressions of Isaiah; cf. with the first half of the verse, Isa. xl. 17, xxiv. 21; and with the second half of it, Isa. xliii. 13. n?3 for 60S, as not, as not existing. FIT3 Knp in the Pa., to strike on the hand, to hinder, derived from the custom of striking children on the hand in chas-

1 Regarding the statement, "his hair grew as the feathers of an eagle," etc., Friedr. remarks, p. 31G, that, besides the neglect of the external appearance, there is also to be observed the circumstance that sometimes in psychical maladies the nails assume a peculiarly monstrous luxuriance with deformity. Besides, his remaining for a long time in the open air is to be considered, " for it is an actual experience that the hair, the more it is exposed to the influences of the rough weather and to the sun's rays, the more does it grow in hardness, and thus becomes like unto the feathers of an eagle."

tising them. The expression is common in the Targg. and in the Arabic.

Ver. 33 (36). With the restoration of his understanding Nebuchadnezzar also regained his royal dignity and his throne. In order to intimate the inward connection between the return of reason and the restoration to his sovereignty, in this verse the first element of his restoration is repeated from ver. 31 (34), and the second follows in connection with it in the simple manner of Semitic narrative, for which we in German (and English) use the closer connection: " when my understanding returned, then also my royal state and my glory returned." The passage beginning with ^j?y! is construed very differently by interpreters. Many co-ordinate?D "ipv with *VVi mn. and then regard ipv either as the nominative, u and then my kingly greatness, my glory and splendour, came to m^ again " (Hitzig), or unite *?J1 *HH as the genitive with ^37» - " and for the honour of my royalty, of my fame and my glory, it (my understanding) returned to me again" (v. Leng., Maur., Klief.). The first of these interpretations is grammatically inadmissible, since? cannot be a sign of the genitive; the other is unnecessarily artificial. We agree with Kosenmuller and Kranichfeld in regarding TO *"HH as the subject of the passage. ^Vl [splendour, pomp] is the majestic appearance of the prince, which according to Oriental modes of conception showed itself in splendid dress; cf. Ps. ex. 3, xxix. 2, xcvi. 9; 2 Chron. xx. 21. VT, splendour (ch. ii. 31), is the shining colour or freshness of the appearance, which is lost by terror, anxiety, or illness, as in ch. v. 6, 9, 10, vii. 28. "*Pv as in ver. 27. In how far the return of the external dignified habitus was conducive to the honour of royalty, the king most fully shows in the second half of the verse, where he says that his counsellors again established him in his kingdom. The Nys, to seek, does not naturally indicate that the king was suffered, during the period of his insanity, to wander about in the fields and forests without any supervision, as Bertholdt and Hitzig think; but it denotes the seeking for one towards whom a commission has to be discharged, as ch. ii. 13; thus, here, the seeking in order that they might transfer to him again the government. The u counsellors and great men " are those who had carried on the government during his insanity, ri^pnn, on account of the accent, distinct., is Hophal pointed with Patach instead of Tsere, as the following nBDVt. If Nebuchadnezzar, after his restoration to the kingdom, attained to yet more *3"|, greatness, than he had before, so he must have reigned yet a considerable time without our needing to suppose that he accomplished also great deeds.

Ver. 34 (37). The manifesto closes with praise to God, the King of heaven, whose works are truth and righteousness, which show themselves in humbling the proud. Bi^'i? corresponds to the Hebr. np«, and H to the Hebr. BStrp. Nebuchadnezzar thus recognised the humiliation which he had experienced as a righteous punishment for his pride, without, however, being mindful of the divine grace which had been shown in mercy toward him; whence Calvin has drawn the conclusion that he was not brought to true heartrepentance.

The Chaldean king Belshazzar made a feast to his chief officers, at which in drunken arrogance, by a desecration of the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from the temple at Jerusalem, he derided the God of Israel (yers. 1-4). Then he suddenly saw the finger of a hand writing on the wall of the guest-chamber, at which he was agitated by violent terror, and commanded that the wise men should be sent for, that they might read and interpret to him the writing; and when they were not able to do this, he became pale with alarm (vers. 5-9). Then the queen informed him of Daniel, who would be able to interpret the writing (vers. 10-12). Daniel, being immediately brought in, declared himself ready to read and interpret the writing; but first he reminded the king of his sin in that he did not take warning from the divine chastisement which had visited king Nebuchadnezzar (ch. iv.), but offended the Most High God by desecrating the holy vessels of His temple (vers. 13, 14). He then interpreted to him the writing, showing the king that God had announced to him by means of it the end of his reign, and the transference of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians (vers. 25-28). Daniel was thereupon raised to honour by Belshazzar, who was, however, in that same night put to death (vers. 29, 30).

This narrative presents historical difficulties, for a Chaldean king by the name of Belshazzar is nowhere else mentioned, except in the passage in Baruch i. 11 f., which is dependent on this chapter of Daniel; and the judgment here announced to him, the occurrence of which is in part mentioned in ver. 30, and in part set forth in ch. vi. 1 (v. 31), does not appear to harmonize with the extra-biblical information which we have regarding the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom.

If we consider closely the contents of this chapter, it appears that Belshazzar, designated in ver. 30 as king of the Chaldeans, is not only in ver. 22 addressed by Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar's son, but in yers. 11, 13, and 18 is also manifestly represented in the same character, for the queen-mother (ver. 11), Belshazzar himself (ver. 13), and Daniel (ver. 18) call Nebuchadnezzar his 3K? father. If now 35$ and 13 do not always express the special relation of father and son, but 3K is used in a wider sense of a grandfather and of yet more remote ancestors, and "12 of grandsons and other descendants, yet this wider interpretation and conception of the words is from the matter of the statements here made highly improbable, or indeed directly excluded, inasmuch as the queen-mother speaks of things which she had experienced, and Daniel said to Belshazzar (ver. 22) that he knew the chastisement which Nebuchadnezzar had suffered from God in the madness that had come upon him, but had not regarded it. In that case the announcement of the judgment threatening Belshazzar and his kingdom (vers. 24-28), when compared with its partial fulfilment in Belshazzar's death (ver. 30), appears to indicate that his death, together with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom and its transference to the Medes and Persians (ch. vi. 1 [v. 31]), occurred at the same time. Nevertheless this indication, as has already been remarked (p. 37), appears to have more plausibility than truth, since neither the combination of the two events in their announcement, nor their union in the statement of their fulfilment, by means of the copula 1 in ch. vi. 1, affords conclusive proof of their being contemporaneous. Since only the time of Belshazzar's death is given (ver. 30), but the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Median Darius (ch. vi. 1) is not chronologically defined, then we may without hesitation grant that the latter event did not happen till some considerable time after the death of Belshazzar, in case other reasons demand this supposition. For, leaving out of view the announcement of the judgment, the narrative contains not the least hint that, at the time when Belshazzar revelled with his lords and his concubines, the city of Babylon was besieged by enemies. " Belshazzar (vers. 1-4) is altogether without care, which he could not have been if the enemy had gathered before the gates. The handwriting announcing evil appears out of harmony with the circumstances (ver. 5j, wnile it would have had a connection with them if the city had been beleaguered. Belshazzar did not believe (ver. 29) that the threatened end was near, which would not have been in harmony with a state of siege. All these circumstances are not to be explained from the light-mindedness of Belshazzar, but they may be by the supposition that his death was the result of an insurrection, unexpected by himself and by all." Kliefoth, p. 148.

Now let us compare with this review of the chapter the nonbiblical reports regarding the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Berosus, in a fragment preserved by Josephus, c. Ap. i. 20, says that " Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in the kingdom by his son Evilmerodach, who reigned badly (rrpocnas t&v Trpayfidrayv uvo/jlcds koli daekyw^), and was put to death (avrjpeOr}) by Neriglissor, the husband of his sister, after he had reigned two years. This Neriglissor succeeded him, and reigned four years. His son Laborosoarchod, being still a child (irals wy), reigned after him nine months, and was murdered by his friends (Bca to 7ro\\a i^alvecv fcaKorjdij vtto tcjv fy'Ckwv aTreTvinravio~6rj)y because he gave many proofs of a bad character. His murderers by a general resolution transferred the government to Nabonnedus, one of the Babylonians who belonged to the conspirators. Under him the walls of Babylon along the river-banks were better built. But in the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus came from Persia with a great army and took Babylon, after he had subjugated all the rest of Asia. Nabonnedus went out to encounter him, but was vanquished in battle, and fled with a few followers and shut himself up in Borsippa. But Cyrus, after he had taken Babylon and demolished its walls, marched against Borsippa and besieged Nabonnedus. But Nabonnedus could not hold out, and therefore surrendered himself. He was at first treated humanely by Cyrus, who removed him from Babylon, and gave him Carmania as a place of residence (Sou? olicr)Tr)pLov avico Kapfxaviav)^ where he spent the remainder of his days and died."

Abydenus, in a shorter fragment preserved by Eusebius in the Prcppar. Ev. ix. 41, and in the Citron. Armen. p. 60 sq., makes the same statements. Petermann's translation of the fragment found in Niebuhr's Gesch. Assurs, p. 504, is as follows: — u There now reigned (after Nebuchodrossor) his son Amilmarodokos, whom his son-in-law Niglisaris immediately murdered, whose only son Labossorakos remained yet alive; but it happened to him also that he met a violent death. He commanded that Nabonedokhos should be placed on the throne of the kingdom, a person who was altogether unfit to occupy it." (In the Prcepar. Evang. this passage is given in these words: Na^ovvlBo^ov airoBeUvvo-c fido-ikea, TTpoayKovra oi ovSev.) " Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land." (This last passage is wanting in the Prcep. Ev.)1

According to these reports, there reigned in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar four other kings, among whom there was no one called Belshazzar, and only one son of Nebuchadnezzar, viz. Evilmerodach; for Neriglissar is son-in-law and Laborosoarchod is grandson (daughter's son) of Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabonnedus was not at all related to him, nor of royal descent. Of these kings, only Evilmerodach and Laborosoarchod were put to death, while on the contrary Neriglissar and Nabonnedus died a natural death, and the Babylonian dominion passed by conquest to the Medes, without Nabonnedus thereby losing his life. Hence it follows,

1 With these statements that of Alexander Polyhistor, in Euseb. Chron. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 45, in the main agrees. His report, according to Petermann's translation (as above, p. 497), is as follows: — " After Nebuchodrossor, his son Amilmarudokhos reigned 12 years, whom the Hebr. hist, calls Ilmarudokhos. After him there reigned over the Chaldeans Neglisaros 4 years, and then Nabodenus 17 years, under whom Cyrus (son) of Cambyses assembled an army against the land of the Babylonians. Nabodenus opposed him, but was overcome and put to flight. Cyrus now reigned over Babylon 9 years," etc. The 12 years of Amilmarudokhos are without doubt an error of the Armenian translator or of some transcriber; and the omission of Loborosoarchod is explained by the circumstance that he did not reign a full year. The correctness of the statement of Berosus is confirmed by the Canon of Ptolemy, who names as successors of ftabokolassar {i.e. Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned 43 years), Illoarudmos 2 years, Nerigassolassaros 4 years, and Nabonadius 17 years; thus omitting Laborosoarchod on the grounds previously mentioned. The number of the years of the reigns mentioned by Berosus agrees with the biblical statements regarding the duration of the exile. From the first taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim are mentioned— Jehoiakim 7 years, Jehoiachin 3 months, and his imprisonment 37 years (Jer. lii. 31), Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Laborosoarchod 9 months, and Nabonnedus 17 years — in all 68 years, to which, if the 2 years of the reign of Darius the Mede are added, we shall have 70 years. The years of the reigns of the Babylonian kings amount in all to the same number; viz. Nebuchadnezzar 44£ years, — since he did not become king till one year after the destruction of Jerusalem, he reigned 43 years, — Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Loborosoarchod 9 months, Nabonnedus 17 years, and Darius the Mede 2 years — in all 70 years.

(1) that Belshazzar cannot be the last king of Babylon, nor is identical with Nabonnedus, who was neither a son nor descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and was not put to death by Cyrus at the destruction of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom; (2) that Belshazzar could neither be Evilmerodach nor Laborosoarchod, since only these two were put to death — the former after he had reigned only two years, and the latter after he had reigned only nine months, while the third year of Belshazzar's reign is mentioned in Dan. viii. 1; and (3) that the death of Belshazzar cannot have been at the same time as the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians.

If we now compare with these facts, gathered from Oriental sources, those narrated by the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon, we find that the former speaks of several Babylonian kings, but says nothing particular regarding them, but, on the other hand, reports many sayings and fabulous stories of two Babylonian queens, Semiramis and Nitocris, to whom he attributes (i. 184 f.) many exploits, and the erection of buildings which Berosus has attributed to Nebuchadnezzar. Of Babylonian kings he names (i. 188) only Labynetos as the son of Nitocris, with the remark, that he had the same name as his father, and that Cyrus wraged war against this second Labynetos, and by diverting the Euphrates from its course at the time of a nocturnal festival of its inhabitants, stormed the city of Babylon (i. 191), after he had gained a battle before laying siege to the capital of the Babylonians (i. 190). Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 15 ff.), agreeing with Herodotus, relates that Cyrus entered the city by damming off the Euphrates during a festival of its inhabitants, and that the king was put to death, whose name he does not mention, but whom he describes (v. 2. 27, iv. 6. 3) as a youth, and (iv. 6. 3, v. 2. 27 f., v. 3. 6, vii. 5. 32) as a riotous, voluptuous, cruel, godless man. The preceding king, the father of the last, he says, was a good man, but his youngest son, who succeeded to the government, was a wicked man. Herodotus and Xenophon appear, then, to agree in this, that both of them connect the destruction of Babylon and the downfall of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus with a riotous festival of the Babylonians, and both describe the last king as of royal descent. They agree with the narrative of Daniel as to the death of Belshazzar, that it took place during or immediately after a festival, and regarding the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Medes and Persians; and they confirm the prevalent interpretation of this chapter, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and was put to death on the occasion of the taking of Babylon. But in their statements concerning the. last king of Babylon they both stand in opposition to the accounts of Berosus and Abydenus. Herodotus and Xenophon describe him as the king's son, while Nabonnedus, according to both of these Chaldean historians, was not of royal descent. Besides this, Xenophon states that the king lost his life at the taking of Babylon, while according to Berosus, on the contrary, he was not in Babylon at all, but was besieged in Borsippa, surrendered to Cyrus, and was banished to Carmania, or according to Abydenus, was made deputy of that province. Shall we then decide for Herodotus and Xenophon, and against Berosus and Abydenus? Against such a decision the great imperfection and indefiniteness of the Grecian account must awaken doubts. If, as is generally supposed, the elder Labynetus of Herodotus is the husband of Nitocris, who was the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, then his son of the same name cannot be identical with the Nabonnedus of Berosus and Abydenus; for according to the testimonies of biblical and Oriental authorities, which are clear on this point, the Chaldean kingdom did not fall under the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and then the statement of Herodotus regarding the two Labynetuses is certainly incorrect, and is fabricated from very obscure traditions. Xenophon also shows himself to be not well informed regarding the history of the Chaldean kings. Although his description of the last of these kings appears to indicate an intimate knowledge of his character, and accords with the character of Belshazzar, yet he does not even know the name of this king, and still less the duration of his reign.

Accordingly these scanty and indefinite Grecian reports cannot counterbalance the extended and minute statements of Berosus and Abydenus, and cannot be taken as regulating the historical interpretation of Dan. v. Josephus, it is true, understands the narrative in such a way that he identifies Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, and connects his death with the destruction of the Babylonish kingdom, for (Ant, x. 11, 2 f.) he states that, after Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evilmerodach reigned eighteen years. But when he died, his son Neriglissar succeeded to the government, and died after he had reigned forty years. After him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it but nine months; and when he was dead (reXevr^aavTo^ avrov), it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus (Nabonnedus), against whom Cyrus the king of Persia and Darius the king of Media made war. While they besieged Babylon a wonderful event occurred at a feast which the king gave to his magnates and his wives, as described by Dan. v. Not long after Cyrus took the city and made Baltasar prisoner. u For it was," he continues, " under Baltasar, after he had reigned seventeen years, that Babylon was taken. This was, as has been handed down to us, the end of the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar." But it is clear that in these reports which Josephus has given he has not drawn his information from sources no longer accessible to us, but has merely attempted in them to combine the reports of Berosus, and perhaps also those of the Greek historians, with his own exposition of the narrative of Dan. v. The deviations from Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy in regard to the number of the years of the reign of Evilmerodach and of Neriglissar are to be attributed to the transcriber of Josephus, since he himself, in his work contra Apion, gives the number in harmony with those stated by those authors without making any further remark. The names of the four kings are derived from Berosus, as well as the nine months' reign of Labosordacus and the seventeen years of Naboandelus; but the deviations from Berosus with respect to the death of Evilmerodach, and the descent of Neriglissar and Nabonnedus from Nebuchadnezzar, Josephus has certainly derived only from Jer. xxvii. 7 and Dan. v.; for the statement by Jeremiah, that all the nations would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son, (l until the very time of his land come," is literally so understood by him as meaning that Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, was succeeded by his own son, who again was succeeded by his son, and so on down to Belshazzar, whom Daniel (ch. v. 22) had called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and whom Josephus regarded as the last king of Babylon, the Nabonnedus of the Babylonians. Josephus did not know how to harmonize with this view the fact of the murder of Evilmerodach by his brother-in-law, and therefore he speaks of Evilmerodach as dying in peace, and of his son as succeeding him on the throne, while he passes by in silence the death of Labosordacus and the descent of Baltasar, and only in the closing sentence reckons him also among the successors of Nebuchadnezzar.

But if in the passages quoted Josephus gives only his own view regarding the Chaldean rulers down to the time of the overthrow of the kingdom, and in that contradicts on several points the statements of Berosus, without supporting these contradictions by authorities, we cannot make use of his narrative as historical evidence for the exposition of this chapter, and the question, Which Babylonian king is to be understood by Belshazzar? must be decided on the ground of existing independent authorities.

Since, th>en, the extra-biblical authorities contradict one another in this, that tne Chaldean historians describe Nabonnedus, the last king of the Chaldean kingdom, as a Babylonian not of royal descent who, after putting to death the last descendant of the royal family, usurped the throne, which, according to their account, he occupied till Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus, when he was banished to Carmania, where he died a natural death; while, on the other hand, Herodotus and Xenophon represent the last Babylonian king, whom Herodotus calls Labynetus = Nabonedos [= Nabonned = Nabonid], as of royal descent, and the successor of his father on the throne, and connect the taking of Babylon with a riotous festival held in the palace and in the city generally, during which, Xenophon says, the king was put to death; — therefore the determination regarding the historical contents of Dan. v. hinges on this point: whether Belshazzar is to be identified, on the authority of Greek authors, with Nabonnedus; or, on the authority of the Chaldean historians, is to be regarded as different from him, and is identical with one of the two Babylonian kings who were dethroned by a conspiracy.

The decision in favour of the former I have in my Lehrb. der Einl.y along with many interpreters, contended for. By this view the statements of Berosus and Abydenus regarding Nabonned's descent and the end of his life must be set aside as unhistorical, and explained only as traditions intended for the glorification of the royal house of Nebuchadnezzar, by which the Babylonians sought to lessen the undeniable disgrace attending the downfall of their monarchy, and to roll away the dishonour of the siege at least from the royal family of the famed Nebuchadnezzar. But although in the statements of Berosus, but particularly in those of Abydenus regarding Nebuchadnezzar, their laudatory character cannot be denied, yet Havernick (N. Krit. Unterss. p. 70 f.) and Kranichfeld, p. 30 ff., have with justice replied that this national partiality in giving colour to his narrative is not apparent in Berosus generally, for he speaks very condemnatorily of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, saying that he administered the affairs of government clvo/jlcds kol acreXya)?; he also blames the predecessor of Nabonnedus, and assigns as the reason of the murder of the former as well as of the latter their own evil conduct. Nor does it appear that Berosus depreciated Nabonnedus in order to benefit his predecessors, rather he thought of him as worthy of distinction, and placed him on the throne in honour

among his predecessors. " What Herodotus says (i. 186) of the wife of Nebuchadnezzar is expressly stated by Berosus to the honour of the government of Nabonnedus, namely, that under his reign a great part of the city wall was furnished with fortifications

ttXlvOov teal a(T(f)d\Tov KareKoafirjOri); and it is obviously with •reference to this statement that in the course of the narrative mention is made of the strong fortifications of the city which defied the assault of Cyrus. Moreover, in the narrative Nabonnedus appears neither as a traitor nor as a coward. On the contrary, he goes out well armed against the enemy and offers him battle (airavTricras fjbera rrj<; 8vvd/jL€co$ kol irapaTa^dfievo^); and the circumstance that he surrendered to Cyrus in Borsippa is to be accounted for from this, that he only succeeded in fleeing thither with a very small band. Finally, it is specially mentioned that Cyrus made war against Babylon after he had conquered the rest of Asia. From this it is manifest that the fame of the strength of Babylon was in no respect weakened by Nabonnedus' seventeen years' reign." (Kranichfeld.) All these circumstances

stand in opposition to the opinion that there is a tendency in Berosus to roll the disgrace of the overthrow of the kingdom from off the family of Nebuchadnezzar, and to attribute it to an incapable upstart.

What Berosus, moreover, says regarding the treatment of Nabonnedus on the part of Cyrus shows no trace of a desire to depreciate the dethroned monarch. That Cyrus assigned him a residence during life in Carmania is in accordance with the noble conduct of Cyrus in other cases, e.g. toward Astyages the Mede, and toward the Lydian king Croesus (Herod, i. 130; Justin. i. 6, 7). In addition to all this, not only is the statement of Berosus regarding the battle which preceded the overthrow of Babylon confirmed by Herodotus, i. 190, but his report also of the descent of Nabonnedus and of his buildings is established by inscriptions reported on by Oppert in his E.cpedit. Scicnt. i. p. 182 ff.; for the ruins of Babylon on both banks of the Euphrates preserve to this day the foundations on which were built the walls of Nabonnedus, consisting of hard bricks almost wholly covered with asphalt, bearing the name of "Nabonetos, who is not described as a king's son, but is only called the son of Nabobalatirib. Cf. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 719, 3d ed.

After all that has been said, Berosus, as a native historian, framing his narratives after Chaldean tradition, certainly merits a preference not only to Herodotus, who, according to his own statement, i. 95, followed the Persian tradition in regard to Cyrus, and is not well informed concerning the Babylonian kings, but also to Xenophon, who in his Cyropcedia, however favourably we may judge of its historical value, follows no pure historical aim, but seeks to set forth Cyrus as the pattern of a hero-king, and reveals no intimate acquaintance with the history of the Chaldean kings. But if, in all his principal statements regarding Nabonnedus, Berosus deserves full credit, we must give up the identification of Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, since the narrative of Dan. v., as above remarked, connects the death of Belshazzar, in point of fact indeed, but not in point of time, with the destruction of the Babylonian kingdom; and the narratives of Herodotus and Xenophon with respect to the destruction of Babylon during a nocturnal revelry of its inhabitants, may rest also only on some tradition that had been transmitted to their time.1

1 Kranichfeld, p. 84 ff., has so clearly shown this origin of the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon regarding the circumstances attending the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, that we cannot refrain from here communicating the principal points of his proof. Proceeding from the Augenschein (appearance), on which Hitzig argues, that, according to Dan. v. 26 ff., the death of Belshazzar coincided with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, since both events are announced together in God's writing, Kranichfeld assumes that this appearance (although it presents itself as an optical illusion, on a fuller acquaintance with the manner of prophetic announcement in which the near and the more remote futures are immediately placed together) has misled the uncritical popular traditions which Herodotus and Xenophon record, and that not from first and native sources. " The noteworthy factum of the mysterious writing which raised Daniel to the rank of third ruler in the kingdom, and certainly, besides, made him to be spoken of as a conspicuous personage, and the interpretation which placed together two facta, and made them apparently contemporaneous, as well as the factum of one part of the announcement of the mysterious writing being actually accomplished that very night, could in the course of time, even among natives, and so much the sooner in the dim form which the tradition very naturally assumed in foreign countries, e.g. in the Persian tradition, easily give occasion to the tradition that the factum mentioned in the mysterious writing occurred, as interpreted, in that same* night." In this way might th©

But if Belshazzar is not the same person as Nabonnedus, nor the last Babylonian king, then he can only be either Evilmerodach or Laborosoarchod, since of Nebuchadnezzar's successors only these two were murdered. Both suppositions have found their advocates. Following the example of Scaliger and Calvisius, Ebrard (Comm. zur Offb. Johannes, p. 45) and Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realencykl. iii. p. 277) regard Belshazzar as Laborosoarchod or Labosordacus (as Josephus writes the name in the Antt.), i.e. Nebo-Sadrach, and Bel = Nebo; for the appearance of the queen leads us to think of a very youthful king, and Belshazzar (ch. v. 13) speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as if all he knew regarding him was derived from hearsay alone. In ch. vi. 1 (v. 31) it is indicated that a man of advanced age came in the room of a mere youth. If Daniel reckons the years of Belshazzar from the death of Evilmerodach

Persian or Median popular tradition easily think of the king who was put to death that night, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as also the last Babylonian king, with whom the kingdom perished, and attribute to him the name Labynetus, i.e. the Nabonnedus of Berosus, which is confirmed by the agreement of Herodotus with Berosus in regard to the battle preceding the overthrow of Babylon, as well as the absence of the king from Babylon at the taking of the city. — " The historical facts with respect to the end of the Chaldean kingdom, as they are preserved by Berosus, were thrown together and confused along the dim course of the tradition with a narrative, preserved to us in its original form by Daniel, of the contents of the mysterious writing, connecting the death of the king with the end of the kingdom, corresponding with which, and indeed in that very night in which it was interpreted, the murder of the king took place; and this dim tradition we have in the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon. But the fact, as related by Daniel v., forms the middle member between the statement given by Berosus and the form which the tradition has assumed in Herodotus and Xenophon." " This seems to me," as Kran., in conclusion, remarks, "to be the very simple and natural state of the matter, in view of the open contradiction, on the one side, in which the Greek authors stand to Berosus and Abydenus, without, however (cf. Herodotus), in all points differing from the former; and, on the other side, in view of the manifest harmony in which they stand with Daniel, without, however, agreeing with him in all points. In such circumstances the Greek authors, as well as Berosus and Abydenus on the other side, serve to establish the statements in the book of Daniel."

Against this view of the origin of the tradition transmitted by Herodotus and Xenophon, that Cyrus took Babylon during a riotous festival of its inhabitants, the prophecies of Isa. xxi. 5, and of Jer. li. 39, cannot be adduced as historical evidence in support of the historical truth of this tradition; for these prophecies contain only the thought that Babylon shall suddenly be destroyed amid the tumult of its revelry and drunkenness, and would only be available as valid evidence if they were either vaticinia ex eventu, or were literally delivered as predictions.

(cf. Jer. xxvii. 7), for Belshazzar's father Neriglissar (Nergal-Sar), since he was only the husband of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, could only "rule in the name of his son, then Belshazzar, (Nebo- Sadrach) was murdered after a reign of four years and nine months, of which his father Nergal-Sar reigned four years in his stead, and he himself nine months. With Belshazzar the house of Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to reign. Astyages, the Median king, regarded himself as heir to the Chaldean throne, and held as his vassal Nabonnedus, who was made king by the conspirators who had murdered Belshazzar; but Nabonnedus endeavoured to maintain his independence by means of a treaty with the king of Lydia, and thus there began the war which was directed first against the Lydian king, and then against Nabonnedus himself.

But of these conjectures and combinations there is no special probability, for proof is wanting. For the alleged origin of the war against the Lydian king and against Nabonnedus there is no historical foundation, since the supposition that Astyages regarded himself, after the extinction of the house of Nebuchadnezzar, as the heir to the Chaldean throne is a mere conjecture. Neither of these conjectures finds any support either in the fact that Nabonnedus remained quiet during the Lydian war instead of rendering help to the Lydian king, or from that which we find on inscriptions regarding the buildings of Nabonnedus. According to the researches of Oppert and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterthums, ii. p. 719), Nabonetus (Nabunahid) not merely completed the walls left unfinished by Nebuchadnezzar, which were designed to shut in Babylon from the Euphrates along both sides of the river; but he designates himself, in inscriptions found on bricks, as ihe preserver and the restorer of the pyramid and the tower, and he boasts of having built a temple at Mugheir to the honour of his deities, the goddess Belit and the god Sin (god of the Moon). The restoration of the pyramid and the tower, as well as the building of the temple, does not agree with the supposition that Nabonnedus ascended the throne as vassal of the Median king with the thought of setting himself free as soon as possible from the Median rule. Moreover the supposition that Neriglissar, as the husband of Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, could have conducted the government only in the name of his son, is opposed to the statements of Berosus and to the Canon of Ptolemy, which reckon Neriglissar as really king, and his reign as distinct from that of his son. Thus the appearance of the queen in Dan. v. by no means indicates that Belshazzar was yet a boy; much rather does the participation of the wives and concubines of Belshazzar in the feast point to the age of the king as beyond that of a boy. Finally, it does not follow from ch. v. 13 that Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar only from hearsay. In the verse referred to, Belshazzar merely says that he had heard regarding Daniel that he was one of the Jews who had been carried captive by his father Nebuchadnezzar. But the carrying away of Daniel and of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar took place, as to its beginning, before he had ascended the throne, and as to its end (under Zedekiah), during the first half of his reign, when his eldest son might be yet a mere youth. That Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar not from hearsay merely, but that he knew from personal knowledge about his madness, Daniel tells him to his race, ver. 22.