1. We continue the discussion on the Fall of Babylon.
2. Introduce Darius the Mede:
3. Begin Chap 6 Daniel and the Lions Den
Notes on Darius the Mede:
65) Another error that Burtchaell makes, he is not alone in this as we will see, is in his claim that Daniel lists "Xerxes, Darius, and Cyrus ... as reigning in that order." Sierichs in private correspondence makes the same error. [9/12/96, page 3; see also Soggin, 408; Collins (1975): 228; Lacocque (1979): 24] Note that Burtchaell did not say where Daniel said such a thing--for the simple reason that Daniel did not say it! This claim is based on the assumption that the Darius of Dan 5:31 is the Darius I of historical renown [see Heuvel, 5-6]. But, as Baldwin has pointed out: it is "unlikely, as some allege, that the author of the book of Daniel, who was meticulous in other details would have muddled Darius the Mede with Darius Hystaspes". [Baldwin (1996): 255; contra Collins (1192): 29 as well] Likewise, it also assumes that the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of Dan 9:1 is the Xerxes with whom we are familiar. [McCabe; Eissfeldt, 521; Taylor] Note that the "Xerxes" of Dan. 9:1 is never mentioned at all in terms of being a ruler; these statements are also usually given in terms of when the person was a ruler--note that this is absent. Plus, does it really make sense to say Darius the "Xerxes"? Also, it is now recognized that Ahasuerus "may be an ancient Achaemenid royal "title"." [Baldwin (1978): 163--citing D. J. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 15; see also R. N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia. (1962): 95, 97; according to Boutflower, on page 53, Herodotus said that "the names of some of the Persian kings -- Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes -- were appellatives rather than proper names." -- Montgomery, 64 claims that this is merely a hypothesis, he doesn't show that it is wrong or that it has no factual foundation] Thus, it is possible that the phrase "son of Ahasuerus" may be a way of saying that Darius was of royal blood. And it has been suggested that the Darius the Mede in 9:1 and 11:1 may, in fact, be the same as the Cyrus the Persian in 10:1; i.e., the same person was known by two separate names and two separate ancestors (royal intermarriage?). In Dan. 6:28 where both names are given it may be that the Hebrew word 'waw' should be translated as an explicative: "during the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian" (or "that is" as in the NIV note). [Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the book of Daniel," Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel; for more details see Shea (1991); see also Emery, 26-7, 44 where he notes that for Daniel 'waw' is a "literary characteristic".] Harrison points out this possibility: "just as James VI of Scotland was also known regnally as James I of England." [Harrison, ISBE. (1979): 863; Baldwin (1978a): 26-7, 127; J. Barr, Interpreter's Bible, (1956): VI:451; see also the NIV on this verse] Further support can be seen in 1 Esdras 3:1 to 5:6. It is commonly assumed that the Darius of these stories is Darius the Great; however, as Emery notes C. C. Torrey has shown that these stories refer to Darius the Mede. [Emery, 30, 124, 137; see Peake's Commentary, 323c; compare 1 Esdras 3:2, 9 with Dan. 6:1-2]
It has also been suggested that Darius the Mede may have been a co-ruler (although subordinate to) Cyrus the Persian--in which case Daniel is describing an effective situation and not necessarily a legal line of rulership; this can be seen in Dan. 5:31 Darius "received the kingdom"--the question is: from whom? [Hasel (Spr. 1981): 45; Davies (1988): 27 assumes that this was from Belshazzar] Note that "for a period of about nine months after the capture of Babylon ... Cyrus the Great did not bear the title "King of Babylon." [Hasel (Spr. 1981): 45 --this comment by Hasel appears to be slightly mis-stated. Boutflower and Shea show that for a period of about ten months there is a gap in which Cyrus is not called "King of Babylon"; he is called such at the beginning and then there is a break till the 4th day of the New Year [Boutflower, 49, for a more in-depth look at Darius the Mede see his book (1923): 143-167; Shea (1971-2); Goldingay, 111-2 notes that Cyrus ruled "through a vassal-king"] Whitcomb has pointed out that Cyrus followed Darius in Daniel is an argument that "must be advanced without the benefit of proof, for the one text that mentions the two rulers together (6:28 [text]) may just as well be interpreted as meaning that Daniel prospered during the contemporary reigns of two rulers, one of whom was subordinate to the other." [Whitcomb, 35] Either possibility would answer Burtchaell's claim that Daniel confuses the two and highlights the need for more definitive information before making claims that are based on an shortage of concrete evidence. As Whitcomb points out: "No intelligent Jew of the second century could have committed such a blunder" as Burtchaell suggests. All the writer would have to do was to look at Ezra 4:5-6 to get the basic facts (this book was written no later than 250 B.C.). Compare that with Davies' claim that "at least two Persian monarchs have been confused, and a fictitious third created out of the confusion." [(1988): 27] He appears to have ignored the statement by Josephus that Darius the Mede "was the son of Astyages and had another name among the Greeks." [Boutflower, 53; Josephus Antiquities. x II. 4]
Note that Daniel does NOT portray Darius the Mede as an "absolute monarch, dynastically speaking over a Median empire" (see 6:1ff, 9:1); nor does the book picture "an intervening Median kingdom" as Montgomery claims. [Montgomery, 61 and in note 5]
66) Note that there is no prophecy in Daniel regarding the "the Maccabean uprising and ... [the] predicted victory for the Jews." [Farrell Till's editorial note to the Sierichs article] This is typical of the type of claims made by the popular critics of the Bible; they make things up as they go along hoping no one will check them out.
67) If the book was so obviously fictional, legendary and filled with errors it is logical to expect to see "hints of this in the tradition of interpretation [much like what we see with the literature that was NOT included in the canon], prior to and independent of Porphyry's attack on Christianity, but these are [conspicuously, one might add] absent." [Ferguson, 747]
Darius the Mede cont'd:
Liberal Bible scholars say that according to
history there was no such man as Darius the Mede
and say that the writer of scripture must have gotten
him mixed up with a later king named Darius of
Persia.
But this apparent error can also be explained.
First of all, the "Babylonian Chronicles" tell us the
exact date which Babylon fell. October 13, 539 B.C.
According to historical records a man named
Gubaru, a Mede, was appointed by King Cyrus to be
ruler in Babylon at this time. Gubaru was born in
601 B.C. which would make him 62 years old when
he invaded Babylon. Exactly the age found Daniel
5:31.
The Babylonian record of Darius the Mede's
conquest of Babylon is given below:
"In the month of Tashritu, at the time when
Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the
Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against
him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a
great slaughter.
On the 14th day, Sippar was taken without a
fight. Nabonidus then fled for his life.
On the 16th day, Gubaru (Darius the Mede)
the leader of Gutium along with the army of Cyrus
entered Babylon without any opposition. Later they
arrested Nabonidus when he returned to Babylon.”
On the third day of the month of Arahshamnu,
Cyrus marched into Babylon, and they laid down
green branches in front of him. The city was no
longer at war, Peace being restored. Cyrus then sent
his best wishes to the residents living there. His
governor, Gubaru, then installed leaders to govern
over all Babylon.”
This account says that Darius the Mede installed
sub governors in Babylon. The Bible says the
same thing, and the prophet Daniel was one of them:
“It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one
hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole
kingdom; and over these, three governors, of whom
Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account
to them, so that the king would suffer no loss.
Then this Daniel distinguished himself above
the governors and satraps, because an excellent
spirit was in him; and the king gave thought to
setting him over the whole realm. So the governors
and satraps sought to find some charge against
Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find
no charge or fault, because he was faithful; nor was
there any error or fault found in him.” Daniel 6:1-4
This was the same Darius the Mede who had
the prophet Daniel thrown into the lions den, mentioned
in Daniel Chapter six.
As far as his name goes, historians believe that
the name Darius was not a proper name at all, but a
title of honor meaning "Holder of the Scepter.” In
other words "The Scepter Holder (King) of the
Medes."
The Jewish historian Josephus also recorded
that: "Darius the Mede, who along with his relative,
Cyrus the King of Persia, brought an end to the
Babylonian empire. Darius was the son of Astyages."
More Notes on Darius the Mede:
The question concerning that of Darius the Mede was one of the particular subjects I found myself greatly involved in researching. Though being denied his existence in secular recorded history, the Bible remains quite clear that he not only lived but that he played a major role in the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom, as well. And after days worth of investigating a variety of material and secular resources abroad, I drew the following conclusions.
(A) Darius was not his real personal name but was given more as a title and reflection for the kingdom of which he governed. You can see this clearly in the original names attached to the rest of the “Dariuses” yet to come. I.e.: Darius I, The Great; Darius II, Ochus; and Darius III, Codomannus. Other examples of this can be found in the Roman titles of the Caesars or that of the many king Herods, as well. It also clearly can be seen throughout the different Greek titles of Antiochus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy. In fact, one can go as far back as the pharaohs of Egypt or to the many popes of Rome (Leo, John, Paul, etc).
Yet, the irony of the name of Darius the Mede goes even farther than a mere title of recognition. For just as “Darius” is attached to Persia, so “the Mede” is attached to the kingdom of Media. Thus in merely pronouncing the name, you can get a picture of the patriotism of his heritage, as well as his loyalty to his newfound government. “Yes I am Darius, an established ruler of Persia, but you may call me the Mede, for this I will forever be.”
(B) As Cyrus the Great also was recorded as having conquered the kingdom, the two had to have worked closely together in some form or another, as well. And from an excerpt taken from the Greek historian Xenophon, we can read the following two paragraphs:
[8.5.17] “And now when the march had brought them into Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares. After they had met and embraced, Cyrus began by telling Cyaxares that a palace in Babylon, and an estate, had been set aside for him so that he might have a residence of his own whenever he came there, and he offered him other gifts, most rich and beautiful. [18] And Cyaxares was glad to take them from his nephew, and then he sent for his daughter, and she came, carrying a golden crown, and bracelets, and a necklace of wrought gold, and a most beautiful Median robe, as splendid as could be. [19] The maiden placed the crown upon the head of Cyrus, and as she did so Cyaxares said:
‘I will give her to you, Cyrus, my own daughter, to be your wife. Your father wedded the daughter of my father, and you are their son; and this is the little maid whom you carried in your arms when you were with us as a lad, and whenever she was asked whom she meant to marry, she would always answer “Cyrus.” And for her dowry I will give her the whole of Media: since I have no lawful son.’ “—Xenophon (translated by H. G. Dakyns,) The project Gutenberg Etext of Cyropaedia, Book 8, C-4, line 17-19—http://www.gutenberg.net/etext00/cyrus10.yxt
Without publishing further the reams of his material and that of many others of which I have read, I concluded wholeheartedly that Cyrus was the nephew of Darius ( Cyaxares).
(C) From a couple other resources on line, I also was able to find the following fascinating statements.
“The Encyclopedia Britannica informs us that, according to Ctesias, an ancient historian, the wife of Cyrus (mother of Smerdis and Cambyses) was the daughter of the Median king. If so, it would seem no more than natural that Cyrus, under moral obligation, should grant to his father-in-law the first place in the united kingdom (Cyrus being king of Persia all the same) till after Darius’ death, only two years later (536 b.c.), when Cyrus became head of the empire.”— John Kofal, Help & Food, vol. 40, p. 314; www.fool4him.com/articles/, darius.htm, October 7, 2000.
” ‘And Darius the Median took the kingdom,’ This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, (Ezra 4:5), the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years;. . . ”—Philologos, Bible Prophecy Research, Title: Darius the Mede, Submitted by: research-bpr@philologos.org, Update: April 06, 2001, URL: philologos.org/bpr/files/d003.htm
Thus I began to see an even clearer picture of this joint effort in the conquering and reestablishment of the Babylonian (now Media Persian) Empire. And I felt quite certain at this point that Darius the Mede, also known as Cyaxares II, was definitely the uncle of Cyrus the Great, who probably reigned for about two years until his death, when Cyrus took full control of the throne.
(D) Yet in the end, after much study throughout secular history, I turned to the inspired writings of Ellen White and read the following two statements. “Babylon was besieged by Cyrus, nephew of Darius the Mede, and commanding general of the combined armies of the Medes and Persians.”— Prophets and Kings, p. 523.
“Darius reigned over Medo-Persia two years after the fall of Babylon. During this time, Daniel was cast into the lions’ den and came out unharmed. This deliverance led Darius to write ‘unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. I make a decree, That in every dominion in my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and steadfast forever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.’ So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”—Review and Herald, March 21, 1907, emphasis supplied.
In conclusion, I knew for a certainty that Ellen had it right. And thus my position as Cyaxares II being Darius the Mede, uncle of Cyrus the Great. Being 62 years of age when he took the kingdom in 539 b.c., he probably was born around 601 b.c., dying two years later in 537 / 536 b.c. Though many still dispute the accuracy of Xenophon’s records and prefer to recognize Gubaru or Gobryas as Darius, an unrelated historical general who reined for only a year, I believe the Spirit of Prophecy cannot be overlooked or disregarded on this point.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Jan 3 2010
Summary:
The events recorded in Daniel 1-4 pertained to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who expanded and united the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C. after ruling 43 years. The ensuing years of Babylonian history till its overthrow by Cyrus in 539 B.C. were marked by progressive deterioration, intrigue, and murder. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Evil-Merodach who ruled for two years (562-560 B.C., 2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). Evil-Merodach was murdered in August 560 by Neriglissar, Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law and Evil-Merodach’s own brother-in-law. Neriglissar then ruled four years (560-556 B.C.). He is the Nergal-Sharezer mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, 13. At his death, he was succeeded by his young son Labashi-Marduk, who ruled only two months (May and June 556) before he was assassinated and succeeded by Nabonidus, who reigned 17 years (556-539 B.C.)
Nabonidus did much to restore the glory that had belonged to Babylon under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus’ mother was the highpriestess of the moon god at Haran. Perhaps because of her influence, he had great interest in restoring and expanding the Babylonian religion and did much to restore abandoned temples. He was absent from Babylon for 10 of his 17 years, from 554 through 545. In Haran he restored the temple of the moon god Sin, and then he attacked Edom and conquered parts of Arabia where he then lived for some time.
Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ eldest son and was appointed by his father as his coregent. (Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar’s father [Dan. 5:2, 11, 13, 18; cf. v. 22] in the sense that he was his ancestor or predecessor.) This coregency explains why Belshazzar was called king (v. 1) and why he exercised kingly authority even though Nabonidus actually held the throne.
Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon
from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son
Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in
1853.
The inscription reads: "May it be that I,
Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may
my firtstborn, Bel-shazzar, worship you with all his
heart."
Another piece of evidence for Belshazzar's
reign in the city of Babylon comes from an inscription
where he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus and
is given authority to rule.
"Putting the camp under the rule of his
oldest son, the firstborn. The army of the empire
he placed under his command. His hands
were now free; He entrusted the authority of
the royal throne to him. "
Yet even another piece of evidence comes from
a tablet dating back to the seventh year of the rule of
Nabonidus, where he is mentioned in the same light
as his father:
“In regards to the bright star which has
appeared, I will undertake to interpret its
meaning for the glory of my lord Nabonidus,
Babylon’s king, and also for the crown prince,
Belshazzar”
What is interesting to note is that on this oath,
the man swore by both Nabonidus and Belshazzar.
While on oaths dating back to other times, generally
only the king is mentioned. This seems to indicate
that Belshazzar had a co-reigning authority that was
second only to his father throughout all the Empire.
Chap 5:
Babylon was being besieged by the Persian army, led by Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, while Belshazzar, inside the city, was giving a great banquet for 1,000 of his nobles. Belshazzar’s name means “Bel (another name for the god Marduk) has protected the king.” Perhaps the banquet was given to show Belshazzar’s contempt for the Persians and to allay his people’s fears. Archeologists have excavated a large hall in Babylon 55 feet wide and 165 feet long that had plastered walls. Such a room would have been sufficient to house a gathering of this size. Belshazzar considered his city secure from assault because of its massive walls. Within the city were supplies that would sustain it for 20 years. Therefore the king felt he had little cause for concern.
5:2-4. The banquet itself showed Belshazzar’s contempt for the power of men. Then, to show his contempt for the power of the true God, he ordered that the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar … had taken from the temple in Jerusalem (cf. 1:1-2) be brought to the banquet hall so the assembled revelers might drink from them. In drinking, the people honored the gods of Babylon-idols made of gold … silver … bronze, iron, wood, and stone. Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father, had attempted to strengthen the Babylonian religion. In keeping with that, this act by his son may have been an attempt to undo the influence of Nebuchadnezzar’s honoring the God of Israel (4:34-35). The polygamous king’s wives and concubines were there too.
5:25. As God had judged Nebuchadnezzar’s pride by removing him from the throne, so He would judge Belshazzar’s pride by taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another people. This judgment was written in the words that appeared on the plaster. First Daniel read the inscription which the wise men were unable to read. It was brief, containing only three words with the first word repeated. MENE (menē’) is an Aramaic noun referring to a weight of 50 shekels (a mina, equal to 1 1/4 pounds). It is from the verb menâh, “to number, to reckon.” TEKEL (teqēl) is a noun referring to a shekel (2/5 of an ounce). It is from the verb teqāl, “to weigh.” PARSIN (parsîn) is a noun meaning a half-mina (25 shekels, or about 2/3 of a pound). It is from the verb peras, “to break in two, to divide.” The word on the wall was actually Ūp̱arsîn, which means “and Parsin” (NIV marg.).
Even if the wise men could have read the words (which they couldn’t), they could not have interpreted them for they had no point of reference as to what had been numbered, weighed, and divided.
5:26-27. Then Daniel proceeded to interpret the meaning of these words. He explained that MENE meant that God had numbered (menâh) the duration of the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom and was about to bring it to an end. TEKEL meant that Belshazzar had been evaluated by God, weighed (teqîltâh, from teqāl) in a balance and had been found wanting, that is, he was too light. A balance was the normal device used in weighing payments. A payment was to meet a certain standard so if it did not meet that standard, it was rejected as unacceptable. Belshazzar’s moral and spiritual character did not measure up to the standard of God’s righteousness so he was rejected. “By Him [God] deeds are weighed (1 Sam. 2:3).
5:28. In interpreting the third word Daniel changed the plural parsîn (v. 25) to the singular PERES (perēs). Belshazzar’s kingdom was to be broken up (divided, perîsaṯ) and given to the Medes and Persians. Apparently Daniel intended a play on words for a change in the vowels in perēs gives the word “Persian” (Pāras). Thus the message was that because of the moral and spiritual degradation of the king and his kingdom, God would terminate the Babylonian Empire and give it to the Medes and Persians.
By the year 540 BC, Cyrus captured Elam (Susiana) and its capital, Susa.[42] The Nabonidus Chronicle records that, prior to the battle(s), Nabonidus had ordered cult statues from outlying Babylonian cities to be brought into the capital, suggesting that the conflict had begun possibly in the winter of 540 BC.[43] Near the beginning of October, Cyrus fought the Battle of Opis in or near the strategic riverside city of Opis on the Tigris, north of Babylon. The Babylonian army was routed, and on October 10, Sippar was seized without a battle, with little to no resistance from the populace.[44] It is probable that Cyrus engaged in negotiations with the Babylonian generals to obtain a compromise on their part and therefore avoid an armed confrontation.[45] Nabonidus was staying in the city at the time and soon fled to the capital, Babylon, which he had not visited in years.[46]
Two days later, on October 7 (Gregorian calendar), Gubaru's troops entered Babylon, again without any resistance from the Babylonian armies, and detained Nabonidus.[47] Herodotus explains that to accomplish this feat, the Persians diverted the Euphrates river into a canal so that the water level dropped "to the height of the middle of a man's thigh," which allowed the invading forces to march directly through the river bed to enter at night.[48] On October 29, Cyrus himself entered the city of Babylon and detained Nabonidus.[49]
Persian Tablet on Nabonidas/Belshazzar: In ref to Nabonidas taking statues
Following the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis, Nabonidus (556-538) and Belshazzar (coreign 550/549-538) were kings in Babylon up to the day when the Persians and Medes under Cyrus diverted the flow of the Euphrates River to gain entry through the city gates of Babylon, slew Belshazzar as he was feasting in his palace and established the Persian Empire. [2400] From this time we have a 4 inch long clay cylinder covered with cuneiform writing recording Cyrus' defeat of Nabonidus and the capture of Babylon. In this cylinder Cyrus describes a morally bankrupt Belshazzar. We read:
"A weakling has been installed as the [ruler] of his country ... He interrupted in a fiendish way the regular offerings ... The worship of Marduk, the king of the gods, he [chang]ed into abomination. ... I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations."
A brief history of Cyrus and the Medes:
A Brief History of the Destruction of Babylon
In the 1st year of Neriglissar [2850], only 2 years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, war broke out between the Babylonians and the Medes. Cyaxares, king of the Medes, who is called "Darius" in the Bible, summoned to his aid his nephew Cyrus of the Persian line, which included his grandfather Astyages of Ecbatana (also known as Achmetha) in Media. When in 539 BC Cyrus marched against Babylon, Nabonidus met him with his army at Opis on the Tigris, in order to prevent Cyrus from crossing the river.[2880] But the forces of Cyrus pushed through and proceeded to Sippar which they captured without a fight. Nabonidus fled south while Belshazar, trusting in the mighty fortified defenses of Babylon feasted the time away.
The war was carried on with uninterrupted success by the Medes and the Persians, until in the 18th year of Nabonidus (the 3rd year of Belshazar, about 538 BC), Cyrus laid siege to Babylon. The defenses of Babylon, of which Nebukadnezzar inscribed, "Thus I completely made strong the defenses of Babylon. May it last forever." [2900], were soon to be put to the test. The walls of Babylon were constructed, according to Herodotus, on the guidance of the Queen of Nebuchadnezzar, Nitocris. With the arrival of the armies of the Medo-Persian King Cyrus and the careless sense of security of the king within the city, a fatal combination of circumstances came together. They counted on their supplies calculated to last them 20 years and enough arable land to augment their sources for food within the city walls. They scoffed at Cyrus from the walls of their city but in years past already Jewish prophets had seen the destruction of this great city coming and even presented the name of the king who would carry it out, `Cyrus'. [Isaiah 13: 19-22] In their sense of security lay the source of danger. They thought of their wall as "Ina irat kigalli išidšu lû ušaršid e-bi-ih dan-num ebirti sît Samši lû ušashir", (`A mountain as big as) strong Ebih I made go all the way around the east bank'.[3000] Noticing the difficulties in taking the city by force, Cyrus resolved to try stratagem.
Knowing of the approach of an annual Babylonian festival in which the whole city would be given to careless mirth and revelry he decided to carry out his purposes on that day. There was no entrance into the city unless he could find it underneath the gates where the Euphrates entered and exited the city.[3100] He divided up his army into three bodies the first of which diverted the water of the river into numerous channels creating a lake. The other two divisions were posted at the entrance and exit of the river by the city wall. As soon as they noticed the water level going down they got ready to find their way inside the exposed city. On each side of the river inside the city along its entire length were great walls equal in dimensions to the outer city wall. These river side walls had huge gates of brass, which, when closed and guarded, barred all entrance within. Had the gates been closed that night, the Persian soldiers would have marched in on the river bed and marched out the other side. But as Isaiah (ca. 740-690) wrote, these gates had been left open that fateful night (Isa. 13:1,2). According to the Book of Daniel, that night the mysterious words, "MN MN TQL PRSN" appeared on the wall. Calling in the wise men, they might have read at first, `Mina, mina, a shekel, and a half shekel', which did not make any sense, where `mene' means weight. However, the prophet Daniel knew what was meant. He read, "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin", `numbered, numbered, weighed and divided'. The play on words has to do with the word `PRSN' which means `divided' and comes mighty close to the Hebrew word for `Persians (paras)'. God had numbered or added up the crimes of the king and completed their tally, The period of Babylon's political might was coming to its end. According to the Babylonian Chronicles, it was the 16th day of the month of Tishri, October 12th, 539 BC.
Persian military first attacked the royal guards stationed in the vestibule of the palace of the king. Belshazzar soon became aware of the cause of the disturbance and died fighting for his life. According to a Greek report, Cyrus spared the life of Nabonidus after his surrender and gave him a residence in Carmania, a Persian province located along the north shore of the Persian Gulf. All in all the Babylonian Empire lasted from about 606-538 BC.
Fall of Babylon:
One might have expected Belshazzar’s wrath to fall on Daniel because of the message he brought. But instead the king, faithful to his word (cf. v. 16), rewarded Daniel. However, Daniel’s enjoyment of those honors and the position to which he had been promoted was short-lived for that very night Belshazzar was killed and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom. (On the identity of Darius the Mede see comments on 6:1.)
The city had been under assault by Cyrus. In anticipation of a long siege the city had stored supplies to last for 20 years. The Euphrates River ran through the city from north to south, so the residents had an ample water supply. Belshazzar had a false sense of security, because the Persian army, led by Ugbaru, was outside Babylon’s city walls. Their army was divided; part was stationed where the river entered the city at the north and the other part was positioned where the river exited from the city at the south. The army diverted the water north of the city by digging a canal from the river to a nearby lake.
With the water diverted, its level receded and the soldiers were able to enter the city by going under the sluice gate. Since the walls were unguarded the Persians, once inside the city, were able to conquer it without a fight. Significantly the defeat of Babylon fulfilled not only the prophecy Daniel made earlier that same night (5:28) but also a prophecy by Isaiah (Isa. 47:1-5). The overthrow of Babylon took place the night of the 16th of Tishri (October 12, 539 B.C.).
The rule of the Medes and Persians was the second phase of the times of the Gentiles (the silver chest and arms of the image in Dan. 2). The events in chapter 5 illustrate that God is sovereign and moves according to His predetermined plans. Those events also anticipate the final overthrow of all Gentile world powers that rebel against God and are characterized by moral and spiritual corruption. Such a judgment, anticipated in Psalm 2:4-6 and Revelation 19:15-16, will be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Jesus Christ to this earth.
Nabobidas Chronicle on Fall of Baylon:
This is a part of the Babylonian Chronicles, which are terse, factual accounts of historical events, and are therefore considered to be very reliable, although not very informative.[15] This text has the following to say on the taking of Babylon by Cyrus:
"In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon."
Additionally, a building inscription has been found that mentions the restoration of the Enlil Gate of Babylon shortly after its capture. Through these data, the following reconstruction has been proposed:[16] When Cyrus attempted to march into southern Mesopotamia, he was met by the Babylonians near Opis. In the ensuing battle, the Persians were victorious. This in turn caused the nearby city of Sippar to surrender. Meanwhile, the Babylonians had withdrawn south to establish a line of defense near the Euphrates that should prevent Cyrus from advancing too far. However, Cyrus did not try the Babylonian army, but sent a small division south along the Tigris to try to take the capital by surprise. This plan worked: the division could reach Babylon undetected and caught it unawares, meeting only minor resistance near one of its gates. Thus, they were not only able to capture Babylon, but also King Nabonidus, who briefly afterwards left his army to return to Babylon, not knowing that the city had already been taken.
This left the Babylonian army in a precarious position, and it soon surrendered. In the meantime, Ugbaru, the commander of the division that had captured Babylon, had taken good care that his men would not plunder or otherwise harm the city; he had even made sure that the temple rites continued to be observed. Nonetheless, it still took Cyrus almost a month before he proceeded towards the city. As many Babylonian officials as well as the Babylonian administrative system stayed in place after the transition of power, it has been surmised that this time was spent on negotiations with representatives from the city;[17] this is similar to what happened when the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II and later Alexander the Great took the city.[18] Finally then, Cyrus went to Babylon, where he could now have his triumphant entry to the cheers of the people.
The events recorded in Daniel 1-4 pertained to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who expanded and united the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C. after ruling 43 years. The ensuing years of Babylonian history till its overthrow by Cyrus in 539 B.C. were marked by progressive deterioration, intrigue, and murder. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Evil-Merodach who ruled for two years (562-560 B.C., 2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). Evil-Merodach was murdered in August 560 by Neriglissar, Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law and Evil-Merodach’s own brother-in-law. Neriglissar then ruled four years (560-556 B.C.). He is the Nergal-Sharezer mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, 13. At his death, he was succeeded by his young son Labashi-Marduk, who ruled only two months (May and June 556) before he was assassinated and succeeded by Nabonidus, who reigned 17 years (556-539 B.C.)
Nabonidus did much to restore the glory that had belonged to Babylon under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus’ mother was the highpriestess of the moon god at Haran. Perhaps because of her influence, he had great interest in restoring and expanding the Babylonian religion and did much to restore abandoned temples. He was absent from Babylon for 10 of his 17 years, from 554 through 545. In Haran he restored the temple of the moon god Sin, and then he attacked Edom and conquered parts of Arabia where he then lived for some time.
Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ eldest son and was appointed by his father as his coregent. (Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar’s father [Dan. 5:2, 11, 13, 18; cf. v. 22] in the sense that he was his ancestor or predecessor.) This coregency explains why Belshazzar was called king (v. 1) and why he exercised kingly authority even though Nabonidus actually held the throne.
Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon
from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son
Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in
1853.
The inscription reads: "May it be that I,
Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may
my firtstborn, Bel-shazzar, worship you with all his
heart."
Another piece of evidence for Belshazzar's
reign in the city of Babylon comes from an inscription
where he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus and
is given authority to rule.
"Putting the camp under the rule of his
oldest son, the firstborn. The army of the empire
he placed under his command. His hands
were now free; He entrusted the authority of
the royal throne to him. "
Yet even another piece of evidence comes from
a tablet dating back to the seventh year of the rule of
Nabonidus, where he is mentioned in the same light
as his father:
“In regards to the bright star which has
appeared, I will undertake to interpret its
meaning for the glory of my lord Nabonidus,
Babylon’s king, and also for the crown prince,
Belshazzar”
What is interesting to note is that on this oath,
the man swore by both Nabonidus and Belshazzar.
While on oaths dating back to other times, generally
only the king is mentioned. This seems to indicate
that Belshazzar had a co-reigning authority that was
second only to his father throughout all the Empire.
Chap 5:
Babylon was being besieged by the Persian army, led by Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, while Belshazzar, inside the city, was giving a great banquet for 1,000 of his nobles. Belshazzar’s name means “Bel (another name for the god Marduk) has protected the king.” Perhaps the banquet was given to show Belshazzar’s contempt for the Persians and to allay his people’s fears. Archeologists have excavated a large hall in Babylon 55 feet wide and 165 feet long that had plastered walls. Such a room would have been sufficient to house a gathering of this size. Belshazzar considered his city secure from assault because of its massive walls. Within the city were supplies that would sustain it for 20 years. Therefore the king felt he had little cause for concern.
5:2-4. The banquet itself showed Belshazzar’s contempt for the power of men. Then, to show his contempt for the power of the true God, he ordered that the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar … had taken from the temple in Jerusalem (cf. 1:1-2) be brought to the banquet hall so the assembled revelers might drink from them. In drinking, the people honored the gods of Babylon-idols made of gold … silver … bronze, iron, wood, and stone. Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father, had attempted to strengthen the Babylonian religion. In keeping with that, this act by his son may have been an attempt to undo the influence of Nebuchadnezzar’s honoring the God of Israel (4:34-35). The polygamous king’s wives and concubines were there too.
5:25. As God had judged Nebuchadnezzar’s pride by removing him from the throne, so He would judge Belshazzar’s pride by taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another people. This judgment was written in the words that appeared on the plaster. First Daniel read the inscription which the wise men were unable to read. It was brief, containing only three words with the first word repeated. MENE (menē’) is an Aramaic noun referring to a weight of 50 shekels (a mina, equal to 1 1/4 pounds). It is from the verb menâh, “to number, to reckon.” TEKEL (teqēl) is a noun referring to a shekel (2/5 of an ounce). It is from the verb teqāl, “to weigh.” PARSIN (parsîn) is a noun meaning a half-mina (25 shekels, or about 2/3 of a pound). It is from the verb peras, “to break in two, to divide.” The word on the wall was actually Ūp̱arsîn, which means “and Parsin” (NIV marg.).
Even if the wise men could have read the words (which they couldn’t), they could not have interpreted them for they had no point of reference as to what had been numbered, weighed, and divided.
5:26-27. Then Daniel proceeded to interpret the meaning of these words. He explained that MENE meant that God had numbered (menâh) the duration of the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom and was about to bring it to an end. TEKEL meant that Belshazzar had been evaluated by God, weighed (teqîltâh, from teqāl) in a balance and had been found wanting, that is, he was too light. A balance was the normal device used in weighing payments. A payment was to meet a certain standard so if it did not meet that standard, it was rejected as unacceptable. Belshazzar’s moral and spiritual character did not measure up to the standard of God’s righteousness so he was rejected. “By Him [God] deeds are weighed (1 Sam. 2:3).
5:28. In interpreting the third word Daniel changed the plural parsîn (v. 25) to the singular PERES (perēs). Belshazzar’s kingdom was to be broken up (divided, perîsaṯ) and given to the Medes and Persians. Apparently Daniel intended a play on words for a change in the vowels in perēs gives the word “Persian” (Pāras). Thus the message was that because of the moral and spiritual degradation of the king and his kingdom, God would terminate the Babylonian Empire and give it to the Medes and Persians.
By the year 540 BC, Cyrus captured Elam (Susiana) and its capital, Susa.[42] The Nabonidus Chronicle records that, prior to the battle(s), Nabonidus had ordered cult statues from outlying Babylonian cities to be brought into the capital, suggesting that the conflict had begun possibly in the winter of 540 BC.[43] Near the beginning of October, Cyrus fought the Battle of Opis in or near the strategic riverside city of Opis on the Tigris, north of Babylon. The Babylonian army was routed, and on October 10, Sippar was seized without a battle, with little to no resistance from the populace.[44] It is probable that Cyrus engaged in negotiations with the Babylonian generals to obtain a compromise on their part and therefore avoid an armed confrontation.[45] Nabonidus was staying in the city at the time and soon fled to the capital, Babylon, which he had not visited in years.[46]
Two days later, on October 7 (Gregorian calendar), Gubaru's troops entered Babylon, again without any resistance from the Babylonian armies, and detained Nabonidus.[47] Herodotus explains that to accomplish this feat, the Persians diverted the Euphrates river into a canal so that the water level dropped "to the height of the middle of a man's thigh," which allowed the invading forces to march directly through the river bed to enter at night.[48] On October 29, Cyrus himself entered the city of Babylon and detained Nabonidus.[49]
Persian Tablet on Nabonidas/Belshazzar: In ref to Nabonidas taking statues
Following the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis, Nabonidus (556-538) and Belshazzar (coreign 550/549-538) were kings in Babylon up to the day when the Persians and Medes under Cyrus diverted the flow of the Euphrates River to gain entry through the city gates of Babylon, slew Belshazzar as he was feasting in his palace and established the Persian Empire. [2400] From this time we have a 4 inch long clay cylinder covered with cuneiform writing recording Cyrus' defeat of Nabonidus and the capture of Babylon. In this cylinder Cyrus describes a morally bankrupt Belshazzar. We read:
"A weakling has been installed as the [ruler] of his country ... He interrupted in a fiendish way the regular offerings ... The worship of Marduk, the king of the gods, he [chang]ed into abomination. ... I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations."
A brief history of Cyrus and the Medes:
A Brief History of the Destruction of Babylon
In the 1st year of Neriglissar [2850], only 2 years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, war broke out between the Babylonians and the Medes. Cyaxares, king of the Medes, who is called "Darius" in the Bible, summoned to his aid his nephew Cyrus of the Persian line, which included his grandfather Astyages of Ecbatana (also known as Achmetha) in Media. When in 539 BC Cyrus marched against Babylon, Nabonidus met him with his army at Opis on the Tigris, in order to prevent Cyrus from crossing the river.[2880] But the forces of Cyrus pushed through and proceeded to Sippar which they captured without a fight. Nabonidus fled south while Belshazar, trusting in the mighty fortified defenses of Babylon feasted the time away.
The war was carried on with uninterrupted success by the Medes and the Persians, until in the 18th year of Nabonidus (the 3rd year of Belshazar, about 538 BC), Cyrus laid siege to Babylon. The defenses of Babylon, of which Nebukadnezzar inscribed, "Thus I completely made strong the defenses of Babylon. May it last forever." [2900], were soon to be put to the test. The walls of Babylon were constructed, according to Herodotus, on the guidance of the Queen of Nebuchadnezzar, Nitocris. With the arrival of the armies of the Medo-Persian King Cyrus and the careless sense of security of the king within the city, a fatal combination of circumstances came together. They counted on their supplies calculated to last them 20 years and enough arable land to augment their sources for food within the city walls. They scoffed at Cyrus from the walls of their city but in years past already Jewish prophets had seen the destruction of this great city coming and even presented the name of the king who would carry it out, `Cyrus'. [Isaiah 13: 19-22] In their sense of security lay the source of danger. They thought of their wall as "Ina irat kigalli išidšu lû ušaršid e-bi-ih dan-num ebirti sît Samši lû ušashir", (`A mountain as big as) strong Ebih I made go all the way around the east bank'.[3000] Noticing the difficulties in taking the city by force, Cyrus resolved to try stratagem.
Knowing of the approach of an annual Babylonian festival in which the whole city would be given to careless mirth and revelry he decided to carry out his purposes on that day. There was no entrance into the city unless he could find it underneath the gates where the Euphrates entered and exited the city.[3100] He divided up his army into three bodies the first of which diverted the water of the river into numerous channels creating a lake. The other two divisions were posted at the entrance and exit of the river by the city wall. As soon as they noticed the water level going down they got ready to find their way inside the exposed city. On each side of the river inside the city along its entire length were great walls equal in dimensions to the outer city wall. These river side walls had huge gates of brass, which, when closed and guarded, barred all entrance within. Had the gates been closed that night, the Persian soldiers would have marched in on the river bed and marched out the other side. But as Isaiah (ca. 740-690) wrote, these gates had been left open that fateful night (Isa. 13:1,2). According to the Book of Daniel, that night the mysterious words, "MN MN TQL PRSN" appeared on the wall. Calling in the wise men, they might have read at first, `Mina, mina, a shekel, and a half shekel', which did not make any sense, where `mene' means weight. However, the prophet Daniel knew what was meant. He read, "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin", `numbered, numbered, weighed and divided'. The play on words has to do with the word `PRSN' which means `divided' and comes mighty close to the Hebrew word for `Persians (paras)'. God had numbered or added up the crimes of the king and completed their tally, The period of Babylon's political might was coming to its end. According to the Babylonian Chronicles, it was the 16th day of the month of Tishri, October 12th, 539 BC.
Persian military first attacked the royal guards stationed in the vestibule of the palace of the king. Belshazzar soon became aware of the cause of the disturbance and died fighting for his life. According to a Greek report, Cyrus spared the life of Nabonidus after his surrender and gave him a residence in Carmania, a Persian province located along the north shore of the Persian Gulf. All in all the Babylonian Empire lasted from about 606-538 BC.
Fall of Babylon:
One might have expected Belshazzar’s wrath to fall on Daniel because of the message he brought. But instead the king, faithful to his word (cf. v. 16), rewarded Daniel. However, Daniel’s enjoyment of those honors and the position to which he had been promoted was short-lived for that very night Belshazzar was killed and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom. (On the identity of Darius the Mede see comments on 6:1.)
The city had been under assault by Cyrus. In anticipation of a long siege the city had stored supplies to last for 20 years. The Euphrates River ran through the city from north to south, so the residents had an ample water supply. Belshazzar had a false sense of security, because the Persian army, led by Ugbaru, was outside Babylon’s city walls. Their army was divided; part was stationed where the river entered the city at the north and the other part was positioned where the river exited from the city at the south. The army diverted the water north of the city by digging a canal from the river to a nearby lake.
With the water diverted, its level receded and the soldiers were able to enter the city by going under the sluice gate. Since the walls were unguarded the Persians, once inside the city, were able to conquer it without a fight. Significantly the defeat of Babylon fulfilled not only the prophecy Daniel made earlier that same night (5:28) but also a prophecy by Isaiah (Isa. 47:1-5). The overthrow of Babylon took place the night of the 16th of Tishri (October 12, 539 B.C.).
The rule of the Medes and Persians was the second phase of the times of the Gentiles (the silver chest and arms of the image in Dan. 2). The events in chapter 5 illustrate that God is sovereign and moves according to His predetermined plans. Those events also anticipate the final overthrow of all Gentile world powers that rebel against God and are characterized by moral and spiritual corruption. Such a judgment, anticipated in Psalm 2:4-6 and Revelation 19:15-16, will be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Jesus Christ to this earth.
Nabobidas Chronicle on Fall of Baylon:
This is a part of the Babylonian Chronicles, which are terse, factual accounts of historical events, and are therefore considered to be very reliable, although not very informative.[15] This text has the following to say on the taking of Babylon by Cyrus:
"In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon."
Additionally, a building inscription has been found that mentions the restoration of the Enlil Gate of Babylon shortly after its capture. Through these data, the following reconstruction has been proposed:[16] When Cyrus attempted to march into southern Mesopotamia, he was met by the Babylonians near Opis. In the ensuing battle, the Persians were victorious. This in turn caused the nearby city of Sippar to surrender. Meanwhile, the Babylonians had withdrawn south to establish a line of defense near the Euphrates that should prevent Cyrus from advancing too far. However, Cyrus did not try the Babylonian army, but sent a small division south along the Tigris to try to take the capital by surprise. This plan worked: the division could reach Babylon undetected and caught it unawares, meeting only minor resistance near one of its gates. Thus, they were not only able to capture Babylon, but also King Nabonidus, who briefly afterwards left his army to return to Babylon, not knowing that the city had already been taken.
This left the Babylonian army in a precarious position, and it soon surrendered. In the meantime, Ugbaru, the commander of the division that had captured Babylon, had taken good care that his men would not plunder or otherwise harm the city; he had even made sure that the temple rites continued to be observed. Nonetheless, it still took Cyrus almost a month before he proceeded towards the city. As many Babylonian officials as well as the Babylonian administrative system stayed in place after the transition of power, it has been surmised that this time was spent on negotiations with representatives from the city;[17] this is similar to what happened when the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II and later Alexander the Great took the city.[18] Finally then, Cyrus went to Babylon, where he could now have his triumphant entry to the cheers of the people.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Prayer of Nabonidus
Words of the prayer, said by Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, the great king, when afflicted with an ulcer on command of the most high God in Temâ:
'I, Nabonidus, was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years, and far from men I was driven, until I prayed to the most high God. And an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of the exile of Judah, and said: "Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of the most high God." Then I wrote this: "When I was afflicted for seven years by the most high God with an evil ulcer during my stay at Temâ, I prayed to the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood, stone and lime, because I thought and considered them gods..."' [the end is missing]
'I, Nabonidus, was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years, and far from men I was driven, until I prayed to the most high God. And an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of the exile of Judah, and said: "Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of the most high God." Then I wrote this: "When I was afflicted for seven years by the most high God with an evil ulcer during my stay at Temâ, I prayed to the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood, stone and lime, because I thought and considered them gods..."' [the end is missing]
Sunday, December 13, 2009
More Info on Neb's "madness".
The mental illness of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon has posed one of the two remaining unsolved problems of the Book of Daniel, the other being the identity of Darius the Mede. Several problems connected with Daniel that vexed scholars of previous generations have been solved to the satisfaction of those who believe in the sixth-century B.C. authorship of the book and in its historical authenticity. Among these problems, solved primarily through archeological discoveries during the past hundred years, are the identity of Belshazzar, the occurrence of Greek words in Daniel, and apparently chronological difficulties.
In 1956 a fragment of a Hebrew document found in Qumran Cave IV and labeled APrayer of Nabonidus@ was published by J. T. Milik. In it Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, claims to have been healed by a Jew from a bad inflammation that had tormented him for seven years, after he had ceased to worship his idols.1 The badly broken leather fragment, written about 100 B.C., was hailed at once by liberal scholars as providing the answer to the questions raised by Daniel 4, where the madness of Nebuchadnezzar is recorded. It has been asserted that the author of Daniel, writing the book Caccording to commonly held liberal viewsCduring the second century B.C., had confused Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar, although there were not only similarities in the two stories but also marked differences. Nabonidus was plagued by a bad inflammation in the city of Tema in Arabia, according to the Qumran scroll fragment, while Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with a mental illness in the city of Babylon, according to the Bible. The best explanation is that the Qumran fragment contains one of the numerous Jewish legends, of which a rich apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature exists, and that the APrayer of Nabonidus@ has nothing to do with Nebuchadnezzar=s unfortunate experience.
And now comes what seems to be the solution to our problem from a cuneiform tablet that has belonged to the treasures of the British Museum for many years but was published only three years ago.2 Unfortunately, the tablet (BM 34113 [sp. 213]) is broken, as are so many other cuneiform tablets. Its fragmentary condition is the main reason that not everything it contains is as clear as we would like it to be. I am presenting here only the best-preserved lines of this text in translation as provided by the editor of the text, Prof. A. K. Grayson:
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered [... ...]
3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ... ...]
5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-Merodach [...]
6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [...]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) ...]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter [...]
12 [...] family and clan does not exist [...]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) ...]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [... ...]
18 His prayers go forth, to [... ...]
The following remarks will help you to understand the parts of this text. Brackets [] indicate words of letters that are broken off from the original tablet, but which have been supplied by the translator. Words or letters in parenthesis () are supplied by the translator for a better understanding of the English rendering. The numerals preceding the lines of text indicate the lines of the tablet that are quoted. Lines missing here are either too badly damaged to make any sense, or are not fully comprehensible and therefore make no contribution to a better understanding of the text as a whole. The reader should note that the end of every line is missing, as indicated by dots between brackets; also the beginnings of lines 2 and 12 are broken off, although there is no doubt that the reconstruction of the beginning of line 2 is correct.
Evil-Merodach of line 5 was the eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor on the throne of Babylon after his death. He is mentioned in the Bible as having released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison after his accession to the throne (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). Esagil, mentioned in line 14, is the name of the principal temple complex of Babylon, in which stood also the ziggurat, a temple-tower 300 feet high. The temple was dedicated to the worship of the country=s chief god, Marduk, mentioned in line 17 of our text.
This text definitely refers to Nebuchadnezzar in lines 2 and 3, but it is not absolutely certain to whom line 6 and the following lines refer. Professor Grayson, the editor of the tablet, suggests that Athe main theme seems to be the improper behavior of Evil-Merodach, particularly with regard to Esagil, followed by a sudden and unexplained change of heart and prayers to Marduk.@ However, another interpretation of the poorly preserved text is also possible, especially if it is read in the light of Daniel 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar=s period of mental derangement for seven years.
Seen in this light, it is possible to detect, in lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14, references to a strange behavior of Nebuchadnezzar, which was brought to the attention of Evil-Merodach by some state official(s) according to whose opinion, life had lost all value for his father, and that he, namely Nebuchadnezzar, gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love to neither son nor daughter anymore, neglected his family, and performed no longer his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Seen in this light one can understand line 5 as referring to Babylonian state officials who, bewildered by the king=s behavior, counseled Evil-Merodach to take over the affairs of state as long as his father would be incapable of carrying out his royal duties. Line 6 and following lines would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar=s strange behavior as described by his courtiers to Evil-Merodach.
Since Nebuchadnezzar recovered from his illness, as the Bible tells us (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king=s courtiers to Evil-Merodach may later have been considered as ill-conceived or Abad@ (line 5), but may at the time when it was rendered have been the wisest way out of the existing dilemma. Since Daniel tells us that Nebuchadnezzar was Adriven from men@ (verse 33) and later reinstated into his regal position by his officers of state (verse 36), it is possible that Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzar=s eldest son, served as regent during his father=s incapacity, although official records continued to be dated according to the years of Nebuchadnezzar=s reign as long as this king remained alive.
It is regrettable that this extremely important text has come down to us in such a deplorably fragmentary condition, but we are grateful that at least a small part of it has been preserved, since it seems to shed light on a biblical narrative that so far has not been vindicated by extrabiblical documentation.
In 1956 a fragment of a Hebrew document found in Qumran Cave IV and labeled APrayer of Nabonidus@ was published by J. T. Milik. In it Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, claims to have been healed by a Jew from a bad inflammation that had tormented him for seven years, after he had ceased to worship his idols.1 The badly broken leather fragment, written about 100 B.C., was hailed at once by liberal scholars as providing the answer to the questions raised by Daniel 4, where the madness of Nebuchadnezzar is recorded. It has been asserted that the author of Daniel, writing the book Caccording to commonly held liberal viewsCduring the second century B.C., had confused Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar, although there were not only similarities in the two stories but also marked differences. Nabonidus was plagued by a bad inflammation in the city of Tema in Arabia, according to the Qumran scroll fragment, while Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with a mental illness in the city of Babylon, according to the Bible. The best explanation is that the Qumran fragment contains one of the numerous Jewish legends, of which a rich apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature exists, and that the APrayer of Nabonidus@ has nothing to do with Nebuchadnezzar=s unfortunate experience.
And now comes what seems to be the solution to our problem from a cuneiform tablet that has belonged to the treasures of the British Museum for many years but was published only three years ago.2 Unfortunately, the tablet (BM 34113 [sp. 213]) is broken, as are so many other cuneiform tablets. Its fragmentary condition is the main reason that not everything it contains is as clear as we would like it to be. I am presenting here only the best-preserved lines of this text in translation as provided by the editor of the text, Prof. A. K. Grayson:
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered [... ...]
3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ... ...]
5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-Merodach [...]
6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [...]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) ...]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter [...]
12 [...] family and clan does not exist [...]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) ...]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [... ...]
18 His prayers go forth, to [... ...]
The following remarks will help you to understand the parts of this text. Brackets [] indicate words of letters that are broken off from the original tablet, but which have been supplied by the translator. Words or letters in parenthesis () are supplied by the translator for a better understanding of the English rendering. The numerals preceding the lines of text indicate the lines of the tablet that are quoted. Lines missing here are either too badly damaged to make any sense, or are not fully comprehensible and therefore make no contribution to a better understanding of the text as a whole. The reader should note that the end of every line is missing, as indicated by dots between brackets; also the beginnings of lines 2 and 12 are broken off, although there is no doubt that the reconstruction of the beginning of line 2 is correct.
Evil-Merodach of line 5 was the eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor on the throne of Babylon after his death. He is mentioned in the Bible as having released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison after his accession to the throne (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). Esagil, mentioned in line 14, is the name of the principal temple complex of Babylon, in which stood also the ziggurat, a temple-tower 300 feet high. The temple was dedicated to the worship of the country=s chief god, Marduk, mentioned in line 17 of our text.
This text definitely refers to Nebuchadnezzar in lines 2 and 3, but it is not absolutely certain to whom line 6 and the following lines refer. Professor Grayson, the editor of the tablet, suggests that Athe main theme seems to be the improper behavior of Evil-Merodach, particularly with regard to Esagil, followed by a sudden and unexplained change of heart and prayers to Marduk.@ However, another interpretation of the poorly preserved text is also possible, especially if it is read in the light of Daniel 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar=s period of mental derangement for seven years.
Seen in this light, it is possible to detect, in lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14, references to a strange behavior of Nebuchadnezzar, which was brought to the attention of Evil-Merodach by some state official(s) according to whose opinion, life had lost all value for his father, and that he, namely Nebuchadnezzar, gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love to neither son nor daughter anymore, neglected his family, and performed no longer his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Seen in this light one can understand line 5 as referring to Babylonian state officials who, bewildered by the king=s behavior, counseled Evil-Merodach to take over the affairs of state as long as his father would be incapable of carrying out his royal duties. Line 6 and following lines would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar=s strange behavior as described by his courtiers to Evil-Merodach.
Since Nebuchadnezzar recovered from his illness, as the Bible tells us (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king=s courtiers to Evil-Merodach may later have been considered as ill-conceived or Abad@ (line 5), but may at the time when it was rendered have been the wisest way out of the existing dilemma. Since Daniel tells us that Nebuchadnezzar was Adriven from men@ (verse 33) and later reinstated into his regal position by his officers of state (verse 36), it is possible that Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzar=s eldest son, served as regent during his father=s incapacity, although official records continued to be dated according to the years of Nebuchadnezzar=s reign as long as this king remained alive.
It is regrettable that this extremely important text has come down to us in such a deplorably fragmentary condition, but we are grateful that at least a small part of it has been preserved, since it seems to shed light on a biblical narrative that so far has not been vindicated by extrabiblical documentation.
Text of BM34113 British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213)
“Unfortunately, it is merely a fragment, and the surviving text is not as clear as we would like it to be. But the lines that may refer to the king’s illness are exciting nevertheless:
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered […..]
3 His life appeared of no value to [him...]
5 And Babylonian speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach […..]
6 Then he gave an entirely different order but [………]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tiers……]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter […..]
12 …family and clan do not exist [………]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the Lord of lords, he raised [his hands in supplication….]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] god [……]
18 His prayer go forth, to [………]
Let's attempt to decipher the text, Brackets [...] indicate which words or letters are broken from the original....
Evil-merodach of line 5 was the eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor on the throne. He is mentioned in the Bible as having released King Jehoiachin of Judah from Prison after his ascension to the throne (2kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34) Esagil in line 14 is the name of the principal temple complex of Babylon, in which the ziggurat a 300 foot high temple tower, stood. The temple was dedicated to the chief god, Marduk, mentioned in line 17.…......
If read in the light of Daniel 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar’s seven-year period of mental derangement, lines 3,6,7,11,12,14 refer to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evil merodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple.
Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the kings’ behavior, counselled Evil-merdach to assume responsibility for the affairs of state...
Lines 6, and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evil-merodach.
Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered, the counsel of the kings’ courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered “bad” (line 5) though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crises.
Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (vs. 36) Evil merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, howver, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Lines 17 and 18 are curious. Was Nebuchadnezzar first appealing to his pagan gods for restoration? If, for seven years, he was crying out to his own gods, before He turned to the true God it makes the account even clearer THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD Who is truly God.
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered […..]
3 His life appeared of no value to [him...]
5 And Babylonian speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach […..]
6 Then he gave an entirely different order but [………]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tiers……]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter […..]
12 …family and clan do not exist [………]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the Lord of lords, he raised [his hands in supplication….]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] god [……]
18 His prayer go forth, to [………]
Let's attempt to decipher the text, Brackets [...] indicate which words or letters are broken from the original....
Evil-merodach of line 5 was the eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor on the throne. He is mentioned in the Bible as having released King Jehoiachin of Judah from Prison after his ascension to the throne (2kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34) Esagil in line 14 is the name of the principal temple complex of Babylon, in which the ziggurat a 300 foot high temple tower, stood. The temple was dedicated to the chief god, Marduk, mentioned in line 17.…......
If read in the light of Daniel 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar’s seven-year period of mental derangement, lines 3,6,7,11,12,14 refer to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evil merodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple.
Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the kings’ behavior, counselled Evil-merdach to assume responsibility for the affairs of state...
Lines 6, and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evil-merodach.
Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered, the counsel of the kings’ courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered “bad” (line 5) though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crises.
Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (vs. 36) Evil merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, howver, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Lines 17 and 18 are curious. Was Nebuchadnezzar first appealing to his pagan gods for restoration? If, for seven years, he was crying out to his own gods, before He turned to the true God it makes the account even clearer THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD Who is truly God.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
12/7 Chap 2-3
First, a quick discussion on the Dan 2:40-45. (The Last Kingdom)
Chap 3 The Statue (reaction to the dream)
The LXX introduces this chapter with the following chronological note: “in the eighteenth year of.” Such a date would place these events at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (cf. 2 Kgs 25:8). However, there seems to be no real basis for associating the events of Daniel 3 with this date.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
3:2-3.
Nebuchadnezzar summoned eight classes of officials to the dedication of the image. This may suggest that the image was intended to symbolize the empire and its unity under Nebuchadnezzar’s authority. The officers referred to in verse 2 are listed again in verse 3 and four of them in verse 27, thus emphasizing the political implications of this incident.
The satraps were chief representatives of the king, the prefects were military commanders, and the governors were civil administrators. The advisers were counselors to those in governmental authority. The treasurers administered the funds of the kingdom, the judges were administrators of the law, and the magistrates passed judgment in keeping with the law. The other provincial officials were probably subordinates of the satraps. This list of officers probably included all who served in any official capacity under Nebuchadnezzar.
On the possibility that Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, was summoned to Babylon for this occasion see comments on Jeremiah 51:59.
3:7 Greek words for instruments problem for some scholars. I believe that the Greek influence from Lydia could easily inflluence this.
Note:
12 sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [pésanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumponéyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
Daniel 3:8-12
No indication is given of the size of the multitude that assembled on this occasion. But because it included all the kingdom’s officials (vv. 2-3) it must have been huge. Some court advisers (astrologers; cf. comments on 1:17) were quick to bring an accusation against the Jews. The word translated denounced is strong, meaning “to tear in pieces.” The accusation was severe, intended to destroy the accused. The accusers were evidently motivated by jealousy for they referred to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had set some Jews … over the affairs of the province of Babylon (3:12; cf. 2:49). The jealousy evidently sprang from the king’s recognition of the unusual ability of these men (1:20). Subjugated peoples, such as the Jewish captives, were normally relegated to positions of servitude, not elevated to authority in a realm. So the high positions of “some Jews” were resented.
The counselors evidently sought to curry favor from the king by contrasting the three Jews’ refusal to bow to the image with their own worship of it. Interestingly they accused Daniel’s three friends—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—but not Daniel. Since Daniel was appointed to a higher office (2:48) he may not have been required to attend (cf. comments on 4:8) or perhaps he may have been elsewhere in the empire carrying out his duties. Or maybe the astrologers did not dare accuse Daniel, who was present but like the other three did not bow. Whatever the reason for his not being mentioned, Daniel’s dedication to his God and submission to the Law certainly precluded his bowing before the image.
3:8 Daniel’s absence from this scene has sparked the imagination of commentators, some of whom have suggested that perhaps he was unable to attend the dedication due to sickness or due to being away on business. Hippolytus supposed that Daniel may have been watching from a distance.
N
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
3:14 Sense of respect or questions the accusers validity.
Either way he calls them out and challenges their decisons.
3:15 Note the arrogance in the question.
3:13-15.
How significant this event was to Nebuchadnezzar is seen by his response to the astrologers’ accusation of the three noncompliant Jews (vv. 9-12). When he heard that the three refused to bow, he became furious with rage (cf. v. 19; 2:12). The high esteem with which these men had previously been held by Nebuchadnezzar (1:20) did not exempt them from submission to his authority. Nebuchadnezzar did not pass an immediate judgment on the three but asked them if the accusation against them were true. He gave them another opportunity to bow before the image. By doing so they could prove the falsehood of the accusation (or show a changed attitude).
3:13-18
God delivers Again
This historical incident seems to have prophetic significance as well. In the coming Tribulation a Gentile ruler (7:8) will demand for himself the worship that belongs to God (2 Thes. 2:4; Rev. 13:8). Any who refuse to acknowledge his right to receive worship will be killed (Rev. 13:15). Assuming political and religious power, he will oppress Israel (Rev. 13:7). Most of the people in the world, including many in Israel, will submit to and worship him. But a small remnant in Israel, like the three in Daniel’s day, will refuse. Many who will not worship the Antichrist will be severely punished; some will be martyred for their faithfulness to Jesus Christ. But a few will be delivered from those persecutions by the Lord Jesus Christ at His second coming.
In the forthcoming Tribulation period God will do for this believing remnant what He did for Daniel’s three companions. They withstood the decree of the king, and though they were not exempted from suffering and oppression they were delivered out of it by the God they trusted. No doubt the remnant of believing Jews in that coming day will find great comfort, consolation, and instruction from this incident in the lives of Daniel’s three companions, as those in Daniel’s day must have found as they were living under Gentile rule.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Chap 3 The Statue (reaction to the dream)
The LXX introduces this chapter with the following chronological note: “in the eighteenth year of.” Such a date would place these events at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (cf. 2 Kgs 25:8). However, there seems to be no real basis for associating the events of Daniel 3 with this date.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
3:2-3.
Nebuchadnezzar summoned eight classes of officials to the dedication of the image. This may suggest that the image was intended to symbolize the empire and its unity under Nebuchadnezzar’s authority. The officers referred to in verse 2 are listed again in verse 3 and four of them in verse 27, thus emphasizing the political implications of this incident.
The satraps were chief representatives of the king, the prefects were military commanders, and the governors were civil administrators. The advisers were counselors to those in governmental authority. The treasurers administered the funds of the kingdom, the judges were administrators of the law, and the magistrates passed judgment in keeping with the law. The other provincial officials were probably subordinates of the satraps. This list of officers probably included all who served in any official capacity under Nebuchadnezzar.
On the possibility that Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, was summoned to Babylon for this occasion see comments on Jeremiah 51:59.
3:7 Greek words for instruments problem for some scholars. I believe that the Greek influence from Lydia could easily inflluence this.
Note:
12 sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [pésanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumponéyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
Daniel 3:8-12
No indication is given of the size of the multitude that assembled on this occasion. But because it included all the kingdom’s officials (vv. 2-3) it must have been huge. Some court advisers (astrologers; cf. comments on 1:17) were quick to bring an accusation against the Jews. The word translated denounced is strong, meaning “to tear in pieces.” The accusation was severe, intended to destroy the accused. The accusers were evidently motivated by jealousy for they referred to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had set some Jews … over the affairs of the province of Babylon (3:12; cf. 2:49). The jealousy evidently sprang from the king’s recognition of the unusual ability of these men (1:20). Subjugated peoples, such as the Jewish captives, were normally relegated to positions of servitude, not elevated to authority in a realm. So the high positions of “some Jews” were resented.
The counselors evidently sought to curry favor from the king by contrasting the three Jews’ refusal to bow to the image with their own worship of it. Interestingly they accused Daniel’s three friends—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—but not Daniel. Since Daniel was appointed to a higher office (2:48) he may not have been required to attend (cf. comments on 4:8) or perhaps he may have been elsewhere in the empire carrying out his duties. Or maybe the astrologers did not dare accuse Daniel, who was present but like the other three did not bow. Whatever the reason for his not being mentioned, Daniel’s dedication to his God and submission to the Law certainly precluded his bowing before the image.
3:8 Daniel’s absence from this scene has sparked the imagination of commentators, some of whom have suggested that perhaps he was unable to attend the dedication due to sickness or due to being away on business. Hippolytus supposed that Daniel may have been watching from a distance.
N
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press.
3:14 Sense of respect or questions the accusers validity.
Either way he calls them out and challenges their decisons.
3:15 Note the arrogance in the question.
3:13-15.
How significant this event was to Nebuchadnezzar is seen by his response to the astrologers’ accusation of the three noncompliant Jews (vv. 9-12). When he heard that the three refused to bow, he became furious with rage (cf. v. 19; 2:12). The high esteem with which these men had previously been held by Nebuchadnezzar (1:20) did not exempt them from submission to his authority. Nebuchadnezzar did not pass an immediate judgment on the three but asked them if the accusation against them were true. He gave them another opportunity to bow before the image. By doing so they could prove the falsehood of the accusation (or show a changed attitude).
3:13-18
God delivers Again
This historical incident seems to have prophetic significance as well. In the coming Tribulation a Gentile ruler (7:8) will demand for himself the worship that belongs to God (2 Thes. 2:4; Rev. 13:8). Any who refuse to acknowledge his right to receive worship will be killed (Rev. 13:15). Assuming political and religious power, he will oppress Israel (Rev. 13:7). Most of the people in the world, including many in Israel, will submit to and worship him. But a small remnant in Israel, like the three in Daniel’s day, will refuse. Many who will not worship the Antichrist will be severely punished; some will be martyred for their faithfulness to Jesus Christ. But a few will be delivered from those persecutions by the Lord Jesus Christ at His second coming.
In the forthcoming Tribulation period God will do for this believing remnant what He did for Daniel’s three companions. They withstood the decree of the king, and though they were not exempted from suffering and oppression they were delivered out of it by the God they trusted. No doubt the remnant of believing Jews in that coming day will find great comfort, consolation, and instruction from this incident in the lives of Daniel’s three companions, as those in Daniel’s day must have found as they were living under Gentile rule.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Alexander and the Jews notes from Josephus
Book of Antiquities, Flavius Josepphus book XI. Chap 5
5. And when he understood that he was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.
5. And when he understood that he was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)