Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 4:4-18
4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace. 5 I saw a dream that made me afraid. As I lay in bed the fancies and the visions of my head alarmed me. 6 So I made a decree that all the wise men of Babylon should be brought before me, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream. 7 Then the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers came in, and I told them the dream, but they could not make known to me its interpretation. 8 At last Daniel came in before me—he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods—and I told him the dream, saying, 9 “O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you, tell me the visions of my dream that I saw and their interpretation. 10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. 12 Its leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the heavens lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.
13 “I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. 14 He proclaimed aloud and said thus: ‘Chop down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 15 But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven. Let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. 16 Let his mind be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s mind be given to him; and let seven periods of time pass over him. 17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.’ 18 This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw. And you, O Belteshazzar, tell me the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”
_____________________________________
This is a somewhat longer section of verses than I usually cover but there didn’t seem to be a good way to break the vision up into two parts. I will try to put the dream and its fallout into some context, as we go, but do keep in mind that this is in the immediate aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar elevating Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and making the following decree:
Daniel 3: 29 Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.”
Nebuchadnezzar – earlier in Daniel – treated his God as someone uniquely powerful with respect to dreams and mysteries. Here he decrees that the God of Israel is uniquely able to provide rescues. What he does not do is decree the God of Israel as “Most High.” The King qualifying God’s power due to his belief that God could not be *Most High* if Babylon was able to conquer Israel. It still has not entered his mind that the God of Israel allowed this event to happen.
In a lot of ways, the Book of Daniel should thus remind its readers of the events regarding Moses and Pharoah in Egypt. The God of Israel is making a point here. Preamble out of the way, we’ll jump in with Ellicott’s Bible Commentary at verse 4:
(4) Flourishing.—A word generally employed to signify the growth of trees. Here, no doubt, it is suggested by the dream which follows, and is for that reason selected by Daniel. It may be observed that the LXX. version here, as in Daniel 3:1, gives the eighteenth year as the date.
My palace.—See Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, p. 506.
The Pulpit Commentaries set up the vision as follows:
I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace: I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. In the Aramaic text there is what may be regarded either as a play on words of the nature of rhyme, or the traces of a doublet. The Septuagint begins the chapter with this verse, as does the Massoretic text, but further appends a date, “In the eighteenth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar said, I was at peace in my house, and established upon my throne: I saw a vision, and I was awestruck, and fear fell upon me.” Theodotion differs from this and also from the Massoretic text, and renders, “I Nebuchadnezzar was flourishing (εὐθηνῶν) in my house, and was prospering (εὐθαλῶν).” The similarity in sound between εὐθηνῶν and εὐθαλῶν may have had to do with the rendering. It will be noted that this is further from the Massoretic recension than the Septuagint. The Peshitta repeats the idea of rest, “I Nebuchadnezzar was at peace (shala) in my house, and was resting (reeh) in my palace.” The Massoretic is supported by the Septuagint, and, therefore, strong. The date in the Septuagint, however, may be questioned. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar was that preceding the capture of Jerusalem, which, according to Jeremiah 52:12, happened in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. In the twenty-ninth verse of the same chapter we have an account of the carrying away of prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar in his eighteenth year, in a passage omitted from the LXX; in a way that makes it probable that, if this passage be genuine, the one is according to the Jewish, the other according to the Babylonian mode of reckoning. If that is so, the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar would mean the year of the capture of Jerusalem. If this date had, however, been correct, something about the coincidence would have been mentioned. Had this book been written to encourage the Jews in their conflict against Epiphanes, it would have been mentioned that Nebuchadnezzar’s madness occurred after he had captured Jerusalem. At the same time, a later scribe would have a tendency to insert such a date, even if no date had been there, or at all events to modify any other date into this. Thus we find in the Septuagint Jeremiah 52:15 (Massoretic 19, Authorized Version 24) a reference to the capture of Jerusalem. Another cause would tend to make “eighteenth year” liable to occur at this point, it is that the previous chapter in the Septuagint begins with assigning the same date. The change must have been made before the exemplar from which the Septuagint translator made his translation had bern transcribed, as it appears in Paulus Tellensis. Ewald has suggested “the twenty-eighth year”—in many respects a probable suggestion. As Ewald has pointed out, the proclamation would have a date. Even if, as Ewald maintained, it was the work of a later time than the days of Nebuchadnezzar, yet so skilful a writer could not fail to recognize the necessity. The Septuagint Version does not give the beginning of this narrative the form of a proclamation. The attitude of the king is that of rest after the toils of long wars—an attitude that could not be attributed to him when he had not reached the middle of his reign. The conquest of Egypt followed the capture of Jerusalem. The difference between “ten” and “twenty” in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, is comparatively little. עֲשַׂר (‛asar) is “ten,” עְשְׂרִין (‛asareen) is “twenty.” As the “ten” is the final word in the numerical statement, it would be modified asaratha, whereas the word “twenty” is frequently in similar circumstances unmodified; we should then have ‛asareen. It may have been even later, but if the real year had been “thirty-eighth,” the modification of the words would require to be greater. Ewald’s further consideration, that as “thirty-eighth” would only leave five years till the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzar were completed, and therefore would not leave space for the seven years of madness, is of less force, as we are not obliged to take “times” as “years” in Jeremiah 52:16 and Jeremiah 52:32. The king had received tokens of Divine power in his past history, and had in a sort acknowledged God but still he had not surrendered his pride. The idea that in this there is a reference to Epiphanes seems far-fetched. The only reason assigned by Hitzig and Behrmann is that the Antiochian mob nicknamed him Ἐπιμανής. We have no reason to believe that this was a common nickname, even in Antioch, and there is not very much likelihood of the nickname spreading to Judaea. There is absolutely no evidence that Antiochus ever received the nickname “Epimanes.” The passage appealed to is usually Polybius, Jeremiah 26:10, but in that passage there is nothing of the kind said. This portion of Polybius has come down to us only in quotation in Athenaeus’ ‘Deipnosophistae’—a collection of odds and ends, strung together by a dialogue. In this book, twice is this portion of Polybius quoted, and in introducing this quotation in beth cases the author refers to the nickname “Epimanes.” In the one case, Jeremiah 5:21 (193), he says generally “Antiochus, surnamed (κληθείς) Epiphanes, but called (ὀνομασθείς) Epimanes, for his deeds.” So far as this goes, Antiochus may have been generally nicknamed Epimanes; but it is to be noted that this is not said, and Polybius is not given as the authority. In the other passage the aspect of things is changed. In 10:53 (439) Athenaeus gives the reference to the book of Polybius, and says, speaking of Antiochus, “Polybius calls him Epimanes on account of his deeds.” Here Athenaeus says that Polybius himself called Antiochus Epimanes, not that anybody else did so. He does not say that Polybius says that Antiochus “was called Epimanes,” but that “Polybius calls him (Πολύβιος δ ̓ aὐτὸν Ἐπιμανῆ καὶ οὐκ Ἐπιφανῆ).” He further gives no indication where Polybius says this. As there is no evidence for the nickname, there is no evidence that this incident was invented to suit this non-existent nickname. The picture of Nebuchadnezzar at rest in his palace is as unlike as possible the uneasy restless demeanour of Antiochus, staggering through the streets more or less drunk, joining with any brawlers he might come in contact with. If the writer of Daniel got the story of the madness from the nickname, he would not fail to get an account of the habits of the monarch, which led to the nickname being given. If he intended his picture of Nebuehadnezzar resting in his palace after his victorious career, with all the dignity of an Oriental monarch, to be recognized as a portrait of Antiochus roaming the streets with a set of drunken companions, the author of Daniel must have had singular ideas of portraiture. It would require a madness greater then Nebuchadnezzar’s to believe it
There’s a lot of really interesting info in the note above, particularly regarding dating of the writing of Daniel and dating regarding the capture of Jerusalem. The “later date” argument centers around the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, who I will tell you about below (via wiki):
Antiochus IV Epiphanes[note 1] (c. 215 BC–November/December 164 BC)[1] was a Greek Hellenistic King who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. Originally named Mithradates (alternative form Mithridates), he assumed the name Antiochus after he ascended the throne.[2] Notable events during Antiochus’ reign include his near-conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt, his persecution of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, and the rebellion of the Jewish Maccabees.
The there is a scholarly debate about whether Jews at the time of Antiochus Ipiphanes made comparisons with the several-hundred-years-gone Nebuchadnezzar, through the then-centuries old Book of Daniel, or whether the Book of Daniel was written at the time of Antiochus, with Nebuchadnezzar’s portrayal therein being influenced by the present circumstances of the Greek king they did not like. Some might even argue that both things happened. The distinction matters, though, and especially later in the text. Continuing on in TPP:
Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof. These verses do not occur in the LXX. Theodotion is a somewhat slavish translation of the Massoretic text, “From me there was set up (ἐτέθη) a decree to summon before me all the wise men of Babylon,” etc. The Peshitta is somewhat freer, but as close to the Massoretic text. Still, the want of the verses in the Septuagint would throw a doubt on their authenticity, even if there were nothing in the verses themselves to make them liable to suspicion.
Continuing a background theme from the book (at least as regards the study of the book), the note refers to difference between the LXX (Septuagint) and the MT (Masoretic Text.) The LXX is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible, originally done in the 3rd century BC, and the MT is the Hebrew text of the Bible – for which we do not have preserved records dating back nearly as far as we do for the Greek. Thus there has been for centuries a debate over which version is more accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped to some degree, and that was particularly relevant regarding The Book of Daniel.
I came across the following article, regarding Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which might be illuminating to those interested in the topic. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide us with Hebrew papyrus dating back to the Second Temple Period – thus allowing some of these debate over translation to be better informed. Excerpt below:
Significance of the Scrolls
It is a highly surprising phenomenon that no fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. In order to appreciate the significance of this fact, we need to compare it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves.
To my knowledge, the most recent listing of published materials (as of 1992) from the Dead Sea scrolls appeared in 1977. The listing speaks of 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11–39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although we have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.
At this juncture we need to make another point. According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 BC. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century BC.
Date of the Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and Its Significance
Dates for the Daniel scrolls, published in 1955, were given by John C. Trever as the Herodian period for 1QDana and late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966:323–36). In other words, these manuscripts could come from about 60 AD or earlier (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:72).
This date is still very significant because the Masoretic text (MT) from which our Bibles are translated comes from a major manuscript that is dated to 1008 AD (Wurthwein 1979:35). In other words, we are able to compare for the first time in history the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book that are about 1,000 years older. A comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, based upon a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, reveals that “the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted” (Mertens 1971:31).
These textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.
The date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance, along with those of the earlier publications. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 BC and 4QDanb to about 60 AD (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the “late second century BC” (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century BC will be able to say that 4QDanc is “only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel” (Ulrich 1987:17). This means for supporters of this dating that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. I quote: “It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament” (Ulrich 1989:3). The latter comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, that is, Rylands 457, which was dated in the first half of the second century AD, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of the second century AD. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.
Continuing on to verse 8, from Ellicott:
(8) At the last.—On account of his position as the chief of the governors of the wise men, Daniel would not “come in” till last.
Belteshazzar.—See Note on Daniel 1:7; Introduction, § 6.
The spirit . . .—He means his own gods, for though he recognised Jehovah to be a “high God,” yet he acknowledged Him only as one out of many.
It is interesting to observe the extent to which this Chapter seems to have been written by Nebuchadnezzar himself. As a lot of the chapters from within Daniel seem to be a collection of related, but not completely synced up stories, that should not feel like a surprise. Returning to TPC for its note on verse 9:
O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. This verse is also omitted in the Septuagint. Theodotion and the Peshitta both have this passage, but with slight variations from the Massoretic text. Instead of “No secret troubleth [אָנֵס, ‘anays, ‘compel,’ Esther 1:8] thee,” Thedotion renders, “No secret (μυστήριον) baffles (ἀδυνατεῖ) thee.” The Peshitta renders. “And no secret is hid (‘ethcasee) from thee,” reading, instead of אָנֵס, probably הִתְכְסִי. Behrmann, who translates the word by verborgen, thinks the choice of the word occasioned by Ezekiel 28:3, “No secret is hid from thee” (עְמָמוּךָ), this last word, he thinks, occasioning the use of אנס; but עֲמַם: is used in Aramaic (see Le Ezekiel 13:6, “dark” of the spot of leprosy). It seems more probable that there is some mistake in the reading. The Massoretic reading of the last clause seems modelled on the situation in the second chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar demands of the magicians that they not only give the interpretation of the dream, but tell the dream itself. The versions here do not agree with the Massoretic. Theodotion renders, “Hear the vision (ὅρασιν) of the dream which I saw, and tell me its interpretation.” The Peshitta has, “In the vision of my dream I was seeing visions of my head, and tell me the interpretation.” The Massoretic reading contradicts the situation, and the variety of reading in the two versions confirms the suspicion of this verse induced by its absence from the Septuagint. “Master of the magicians” (rab-ḥartummaya). There is nothing in Daniel 2:48 about the promotion of Daniel over the “magi-clans,” but only over the “governors (signeen) of the wise men (ḥakaymeen) of Babylon” This is not to be in itself regarded as a proof of antagonism between these verses and the earlier portion of the, book, as Daniel might have been promoted in the interval. The Peshitta calls Daniel rab-haḥmeen, “chief of the wise men;” Theodotion, ἄρχων τῶν ἐπαοιδῶν. It is also to be observed that the writer of these verses does not make Daniel rab-mag, which so generally was anciently understood to mean “master of the magicians.” Avoiding an alluring blunder is often as clear a proof of knowledge as a directly correct statement. “Spirit of the holy gods;” not “the Spirit,” but “a spirit.” The Authorized Version is here correct in translating “gods,” not “God,” as the adjective is plural; not as Theodotion, who renders, “a holy spirit of God,” reading, רוּחַ אלה קְדוֹשָׁה.
We get from the verse and the note another clue as to why what is about to befall the King, befalls him. As the God of Israel displayed in Egypt, the foreign occupier is not permitted to believe his local “gods” are stronger or better than those of Israel. Despite what has happened, Nebuchadnezzar has not sufficiently nor accurately elevated the God of Israel to a “Most High” position. Thus, the beatings continue until morale improves. Or rather, the shows of force continue until every knee is bent. Continuing on to verse 10 in Ellicott:
(10) A tree.—For this symbol of majesty, comp. Ezekiel 31:3, &c. The dream of Cambyses (Herod. i. 108) was of a similar nature.
(11) The tree grew.—It appeared in the vision to grow gradually larger and larger. According to the LXX., “The sun and moon dwelled in it and gave light to the whole earth.”
The sight thereof—i.e., the tree could be seen from the most distant parts of the known world.
(12) The fruit thereof much.—By this is implied the great quantity of fruit as well as the largeness of it.
We’ll get to the interpretation in the next section of verses, but for now we’ll admit that the tree represents the Kingdom of Babylon. This Kingdom is the Golden Head of the statue, from the earlier vision, and here it is a thing that reaches and is seen by the whole earth.
Given that subsequent apocryphal literature, both from Jews and the Jews who became Christians, refers to future kingdoms in terms of “Babylon,” one wonders whether there is more going on than merely earthly political powers. Babylon is a callback to Nimrod and the disinheritance of the nations in Genesis 10 and 11. Babylon is the name of a future empire, destined to fall.
Revelation 17: 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.[a]
When I saw her, I marveled greatly.
Perhaps we should see more than an individual kingdom 2600 years ago. It appears that the intent of the text is to state that there is a rebellious spiritual thread linking all worldly kingdoms in their rebellion against the God of Israel. Babylon – the golden head of the statue, and the great tree – is the symbolic spiritual name of that rebellion.
There are also ancient powerful families who claim improbable descent from ancient Roman families, who at the time claimed improbably descent from ancient Egypt and Babylon. Maybe it’s not all entirely crazy. (Though despite my best efforts, I have not been able to find anything at all on any family worth sharing here.) Moving on and picking back up with Ellicott in verse 13:
(13) A watcher and a holy one—i.e., a holy one who is watchful; translated “angel” by the LXX., but simply transliterated into “Eir” by Theodotion. The word is used twice by the king, and once by Daniel (Daniel 4:23), but it is to be noticed that the prophet substitutes “the Most High” for the words of the king in Daniel 4:17). We must suppose that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed in a language familiar to himself, and that the objects of his dream were things with which his Babylonian education had made him acquainted. According to his mythology, the god of Nergal was regarded as “manifesting himself in watching,” so that he may have dreamed that he witnessed a descent of one of his deities. In this he is corrected by Daniel, being assured that the whole is sent from heaven, that the decree is ordered by the one true God, and that the holy watcher is an angel of God.
The term “Watcher” is also used in the Book of 1 Enoch, to describe those celestial beings who took human wives and created the Nephilim. Genesis 6, which gives a much shorter account of that incident, describes these celestial beings as “ben Elohim” (sons of God.) For a helpful sidetrack regarding Watchers and Elohim, I direct you to the following video, from Old Testament scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser:
The “Watchers” stuff picks up around 3:50. There are a lot of lecture videos online, in addition to his book on the subject.
So Nebuchadnezzar had a vision of one of these celestial beings – various described as an angel, a ben Elohim, or a Watcher. Now that we’ve identified the vision’s Speaker, continuing on, from TPC in verse 14:
He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, cut off his branches, shako off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches. The Septuagint Version is, “And one called and said to him, Cut it down, and destroy it; for it is decreed by the Highest to root it out and destroy it.” It is possible that abbey in the Greek was due to כֵן (kayn) being read as לוֹ (lō). The phrase as it stands in the Greek is not unlike Revelation 14:18, “And another cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp sickle.” It is, therefore, equally possible that לוֹ (lō) has been changed into כֵן (kayn). The latter part of the verse is more condensed, and therefore, by that, more probable; only the rooting out commanded seems to contradict the fact that it is also commanded to leave “one root of it.” Theodotion is in much closer agreement with the Massoretic, save that the beasts, instead of being warned to depart from beneath the shadow of the tree, are to be shaken (σαλευθηῖωσαν) from beneath it, as are all the birds from its branches. The Peshitta is an accurate translation of the text of the Massoretes. A peculiarity to be observed in the Aramaic is that the verbs are in the plural, which is retained in Theodotion and the Peshitta. It seems difficult to understand this. Stuart’s explanation ― which is practically that of Havernick and Hitzig—that the command is addressed by the עִיר (‛eer) to his retinue, seems highly forced, as there has been no word of a retinue. Keil’s and Kliefoth’s view, that the plural is the impersonal, does not suit the circumstances. We have a suspicion that the plural is due to a mistake—thinking the watcher and the holy one were separate persons. The Septuagint, however, has the plural, which is all the more extraordinary that αὐτῷ is singular. The function assigned here to the angels must be observed. Here, as in the parables of our Lord, the angels are the instruments by whom the decrees of providence are executed. In our days angels are not believed in. It is possible that materialism has much of its advantage over us, in that we do not recognize the existence and activity of angelic forces among the agencies of nature and providence.
If Babylon is the tree… here’s the warning that the tree is about to be cut down. Continuing with Ellicott and verse 15:
(15) The stump.—The whole tree was not to be destroyed, but just so much was to remain as could produce a new sapling. (Comp. Isaiah 11:1.) As long as the stump remained, it might be hoped that the green branches might shoot forth again. (Comp. Daniel 4:36.)
A band.—As the vision continues, the typical language is gradually laid aside, and it begins to appear that by the tree a man is intended. We must not understand by “the band” the chains by which the unfortunate king would be confined, but metaphorically trouble and affliction, as Psalms 107:10; Psalms 149:8. It has been assumed that during his malady the king wandered about at large. This is highly improbable. That his courtiers did not avail themselves of his sickness to substitute some other king in his place is sufficient proof of their regard for him. It is natural to suppose that he was confined in some court of his palace. The inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, and accounts of his reign written by historians, being all composed with the view of glorifying the monarch, naturally suppress all mention of his madness.
The note tells us that the tree from the vision seems to indicate an individual man (a thing that becomes more clear in the next verse.) However, this might also be a case of “now and also later” that occurs throughout the Bible, where prophecies are concerned. Some of the descriptions of the tree seem as though they are larger in scale than what we know to be true about Nebuchadnezzar. Continuing on to verse 16, via Ellicott again:
(16) Here the metaphor of Daniel 4:15 is entirely discontinued, and a man is mentioned.
Seven times.—On the use of the number “seven” see Note on Daniel 3:19. The period intended by “time” is very uncertain: from the use of the word in Judges 17:10 it has been inferred that “years” are intended. This is purely conjectural. It is more probable that the word is used to signify some definite period of time, which, as appears from the words “over him,” was in some way marked out by the heavenly bodies. The word “time” is used by Daniel in the same sense (Daniel 7:25). (Comp. Daniel 12:7, where, however, a different word is employed.)
We do not know the duration of the King’s madness. Perhaps it was 7 days, 7 weeks, 7 months, 7 years, or 7 of something else. “Years” is often the ascribed inference, as the note says. You might ask yourself if there is an archaeological record of an event like this – because surely there would be. The answer, actually, is yes. Kind of. It’s a challenging blend of historicity and historical fiction. via history.howstuffworks.com
Incredibly, there is an independent record of a Babylonian king going mad and wandering in the wilderness for years. But it wasn’t Nebuchadnezzar, says Frahm. In Babylonian texts, the “mad king” was Nabonidus, a king who ruled two decades after Nebuchadnezzar and ended up losing the Babylonian Empire to the Persians.
According to the records, King Nabonidus replaced the Babylonian gods with a new moon god and then led his troops on a strange campaign into the Arabian Desert to attack some towns, including Yathrib, the later Medina. He then dwelled the next 10 years in the Arabian city of Tayma.
“This sojourn of Nabonidus in Arabia for 10 years is clearly the background of the story of Nebuchadnezzar in the wilderness,” says Frahm.
There’s even physical proof of the Nabonidus story also being tied to a Hebrew sage. Four fragments discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls contained what’s now known as the Prayer of Nabonidus:
I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years…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].”
Frahm says that the “exorcist” in the Nabonidus account is clearly Daniel, and it’s easy to understand why the authors of Daniel would have substituted the “tyrant” Nebuchadnezzar in their retelling. (There’s no evidence that Nabonidus ate grass.)
“In this theology, where you have to be punished for the sins you committed, it makes sense that it’s Nebuchadnezzar and not Nabonidus who is said to have had this strange episode,” says Frahm.
The Hebrew Bible is an incredible document, not only for the faithful, but for historians like Frahm. In books like 2 Kings and Jeremiah, there are accounts of Nebuchadnezzar and later Babylonian kings that have been independently confirmed by ancient cuneiform tablets recovered from Babylonian sites.
But then you have the stories in Daniel about the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams and being cursed with a seven-year madness, all of which Frahm describes not as history, but literature.
What does the example of Nebuchadnezzar teach us about the historicity of the Bible? That it’s neither entirely factual nor entirely made up, Frahm says.
“You have to look at the details,” says Frahm. “When we have these independent sources, as we do for the sixth century B.C.E., you do have a good chance of figuring out what is historically correct and what is later theological interpretation.”
For more details on this, the video below is also great (warning – not a religious source and has some casual bad language in it):
First, we do have to acknowledge that it’s possible a clay tablet will someday be found verifying the account in Daniel. If one Babylonian King can go insane, another can. However, the weight of the evidence points to there being a blending of traditions, some of which is historically accurate and some of which is literature, though based on history. This blend of history and fictionalized history is challenging because it asks a reader to question whether a fictionalized historical account is acceptable as Scripture. A lot of Bible study deals in typology, and treating the text as literature, but most readers do not like to think of it as intentionally fictionalized. That feels like it places the events of Daniel as something closer to a parable than a historical document.
I would argue that this is why Scripture study is important. A lot of Scripture – which nobody disputes – has overlap with surrounding religious texts, and often the Hebrew text is a polemic against the surrounding text it addresses. Is Scripture intended to be a historical document, a text to impart moral teaching, or some blend of multiple things?
The fact that some of this might be fictionalized history might also lead one to then adopt the later dating of Daniel, but unfortunately it is not that simple. The substance of the text does not undo most of the arguments for its earlier dating. It could have been written exactly as we see it, with the earlier date. Daniel is going to present more of these types of situations going forward. You might be tempted to just want to through Daniel out entirely, but this story is canonical across traditions AND what do you then do with some of the arguably accurate prophetic accounts later in Daniel?
That’s a lot to take on, and I don’t want to cut it short, so I’d suggest that if you have more questions you look into the book referred to above. Continuing to the next verse, from Ellicott:
(17) By the decree—i.e., the message to the king rests on this decree or sentence, and it is ascribed to the “watcher,” because to him pertained the execution of the decree.
The demand.—Comp. Isaiah 44:26. According to the use of the word in Chaldee elsewhere, this can be the only true meaning. The “holy one” makes this request of God, and the carrying out of His decree pertains to the “watcher.” “This,” says Dr. Pusey, “gives another glimpse into the interest of the holy angels in ourselves. They, too, longed that oppression should cease, and joining in the cry which for ever is going up from the oppressed to the throne of mercy and judgment, prayed for that chastisement which was to relieve the oppressed and convert the oppressor” (Lectures on Daniel, p. 525).
Ruleth . . .—i.e., Almighty God disposes of human empires as He pleases. (Comp. Daniel 5:21.)
So as the King reports, as he was reported to by a Watcher, we are told about the vision. Daniel will be called upon to interpret. We’ll finish up the section in TPC, at verse 18:
This dream I King Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation; but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. This verse is wholly omitted in the Septuagint. On the other hand, the verse in the Septuagint which occupies this place is totally different from anything in the Massoretic text: “Before me was it cut down in one day, and its destruction was in one hour of the day, and its branches were given to every wind, and it was driven out and dragged forth, and it ate the grass of the earth, and it was delivered to a guard, and in brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them. I marvelled exceedingly at these things, and the sleep departed from mine eyes.” The first thing that strikes one with this is the fact that it is a translation from Aramaic. The clause, “in brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them,” seems nearly demonstrative of this. Ἐν πέδαις καὶ ἐν χειροπέδαις χαλκαῖς ἐδέθη ὑπ αὐτῶν is not a sentence which any one would naturally write in Greek, but the sentence is natural if the translator followed his Aramaic original slavishly. If, then, this is correct, the hypothesis of a falsarius is reduced to that of an Aramaic falsarius, who intruded this verse into the Aramaic original which was conveyed down to Egypt. On the other hand, the verse in the Septuagint completes the narrative which the Massoretic text leaves unfinished. This may be used. as an argument against the authenticity of this version, as the need of completion may have suggested the mode in which the need was to be supplied. But it is also to be noted that there is present the same mixture of sign and thing signified, which, natural in a dream, is so unnatural in ordinary narration, that the falsarius who had observed the incompleteness of the Massoretic text, and had the necessary skill to supply the want, would not have increased the confusion, already manifest enough. When we turn to Theodotion, we see symptoms of trouble, “This is the vision which I Nebuchadnezzar the king had, and thou, Beltasar, tell the interpretation, because none of the wise men of my kingdom were able to show me its interpretation; but thou, Daniel, art able, because a holy spirit of God is in thee.” The introduction of the Jewish name Daniel in the midst of a speech in which he is always elsewhere addressed by his Bahylonian name, is suspicious. The repetition, in this as in the Masoretic, of the original incongruity that Daniel, the head of the court magicians, is only summoned after the other magicians have proved unable to solve the mystery of this dream, is to be noted. The Peshitta here partly follows the same text as that followed by Theodotion, and partly that of the Massoretes. Like Theodotion, “Daniel” is inserted, but, following the basis of the Massoretic text in opposition to Theodotion, it has “a spirit of the holy gods.” There seems no possibility of imagining the LXX. reading to have developed from the Massoretic, or vice versa. If there were any proof of Dr. C. H. H. Wright’s hypothesis, that our present Daniel was a condensation of a larger work, it might be supposed that the Massoretic represented one condensation, and the LXX. another. The Septuagint at this point inserts, “And having risen early in the morning,. I summoned Daniel, the ruler of the wise men and chief of the interpreters, and related to him the dream, and he showed all the interpretation of it.” In Genesis 41:1-57. we have two accounts of Pharaoh’s dream, first in connection with his actual dreaming, and next in his narrating to Joseph his experience. If the original tract—from the union of several of which we imagine our book has been compiled—from which this chapter is condensed contained, like Genesis 41:1-57; two accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, and the Egyptian recension followed one condensation of this tract, and the Palestinian another, the phenomena are explicable without the idea of a vague gratuitous variation, such as that of which, on the traditional view, the writer of the Septuagint has been guilty. On the ground that the Massoretic text may represent also a true text of Daniel, another fragment of the original document, we may examine it a little more closely. The king declares the dream to Daniel in a way that indicates a certain attestation of the accuracy of the report of what he had seen. “This is the dream which I Nebuchadnezzar the king saw.” Then follows the command to declare the interpretation, “You are master of magicians. I have duly brought before you an accredited dream which I have had, fulfil now your office, interpret to me my dream.” This much is natural. What follows is an obvious interpolation. It contradicts what has preceded, which, by implication, asserts Daniel’s duty to interpret, and therefore the probability that not last, but first, would Daniel have been appealed to. It contradicts also what follows, which is a commendation of Daniel’s powers, which, as known to the king, ought to have led him at once to summon him, as the Septuagint says Nebuchadnezzar did. The commendation of Daniel appears an addition to get over the difficulty, but, like many other attempts of the same kind, it fails, and really adds to the confusion.
Verse 18 ends what feels like an official decree issued by the Babylonian King, wherein the King is writing in the first person. It’s an odd section of verses that covers a lot of ground.
We’ll get to Daniel’s response in the next section.