The Book of Daniel 4:34-37

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 4:34-37

³⁴ At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
³⁵ all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
    and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
    or say to him, “What have you done?”

³⁶ At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. ³⁷ Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

__________________________

Nebuchadnezzar recovers his mind. His restoration resulted from lifting his eyes to heaven, then praising and honoring the God of the Jews, who Nebuchadnezzar now acknowledges as “Most High.” You might see the Babylonian King as a Type for all who, like him, deny God’s status.

This section, like the rest of the chapter, is written as though it was penned by Nebuchadnezzar himself. We’ll start this section looking at the note from The Pulpit Commentaries covering verse 34, which notes the relatively wide difference between the Septuagint’s version of verse 34 and the text for other versions, including the Masoretic Text.

Daniel 4:34

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation. If the translator of the Septuagint had the Massoretic text before him, he has gone utterly away from it, and gives us a mere paraphrase, “And after seven years I gave my soul to prayer, and besought concerning my sins at the presence of the Lord, the God of heaven, and prayed concerning mine ignorances to the great God of gods.” There is another version of this verse, for this which we have given has been misplaced. The verse which appears in the proper place, though also very different from the Massoretic, is as different from that we have just given, “And at the end of seven years the time of my redemption came, and my sins and mine ignorances were fulfilled before the God of heaven, and I besought concerning my ignorances the God of gods, and behold an angel out of heaven called to me, saying, Nebuchadnezzar, serve the holy God of heaven, and give glory to the Highest; the kingdom of thy nation has been restored to thee.” The latter clause has the look of leading into the following verse. One cannot but feel that there is in both the work of the paraphrast, but at the same time, he seems, in both cases, to have been working with a different text from that of the Massoretes. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree accurately with the Massoretic. The sudden gleam of intelligence that broke the spell of madness is a perfectly natural termination to an attack like that under which Nebuchadnezzar suffered. The tranquillizing effect of prayer is well known. The ascription of praise in the liturgic formula here given is not unlike what we find in the Ninevite remains. Bevan suggests as a parallel, Euripides’ ‘Bacchae,’ where there is a recovery from madness accompanied with looking up.

If we assume that this chapter was, in fact, written by the Babylonian King, then should we consider the possibility that two variations of a royal decree might exist? That might explain two similar but different texts. Or there might be another reason (such as a scribal addition at some point.) We don’t have any definitive answers as to that.

The text at the end of verse 34, and continuing, seems to shift from a straight-forward telling, to (as the note above states) more of a liturgical form. That’s why the English translation renders these verses as it does, indented and separate form the rest of the text. Continuing on to the note for verse 35, again in TPC:

Daniel 4:35

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? The rendering of the Septuagint here is very difficult to follow, from the state of confusion in which the text is. The verse that comes next in order is very short,” At that time my kingdom was set up, and my glory was restored to me.” This is a condensed statement of what is recorded in the following verse, and we shall consider it in that connection. The verse which succeeds suits more the conclusion of such a letter or proclamation as is here represented, so far as form goes, though the matter shows traces of exaggeration and amplification natural to the Jew. At the same time, it bears a resemblance to the last verse of this chapter, according to the Massoretes, only greatly amplified. It may thus be best to regard this verse as not present in the Septuagint text. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The statement here is true, but Jewish, not Babylonian, in colour. This, along with its absence from the Septuagint, leads us to believe it to be the insertion of a Jewish scribe. On the other hand, it looks like a statement in brief of what we find expanded in Isaiah 40:1-31. and elsewhere. If brevity is to be regarded as an evidence of antiquity, this passage might be taken as the more ancient. It is, however, too bald and prosaic to be the original of such an impassioned passage as that in Isaiah 40:1-31.

We see now that the King is humbled. Once humbled, he is restored, and then some. The restoration is as much a sign of God’s power as the humbling was. (Imagine being completely insane, for a long time, and not having someone sane permanently take said power from you.) A Christian might again look at Nebuchadnezzar as a typological figure, for those who convert.

Finally, we’ll close the chapter by looking at the note for verse 37, in Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:

(37) The King of heaven.—How far the king arrived at a belief in one God is not clear. There may be noticed, however, a progress in his spiritual character, effected by the grace of God, after each of the interviews which he held with the prophet. At first (Daniel 2:26) his belief was no higher than that which a heathen has in his own superstitions. This develops (Daniel 2:47) into a belief that Daniel’s God is “a God of gods, a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets.” But even at that time he had not arrived at anything like a belief that Jehovah was equal to his own gods. The story of the three holy children shows how little depth there was in his former profession, for in Daniel 3:15 he is represented as setting himself above all gods. After the miracle wrought in their behalf he acknowledges Jehovah to be “the most high God,” though he continued to regard Him as only on a level with his own Bel-Merodach. This chapter represents him as recognising “the Most High” to be the cause of his recovery, and as praising the “King of heaven.” Holding, as he did, the Babylonian theory of sickness, he must have supposed himself to have been under the influence of some evil spirit; and, with a view to his recovery, his magicians must have treated his disease with charms, amulets, exorcisms, and by placing before him images of his gods. This thanksgiving makes it possible to suppose that he had relinquished much of his belief in his former superstitions, and that he was advancing towards, if not actually in possession of, the truth.

The note makes the point that it is likely the King’s magicians attempted to treat him, and failed in their efforts. Perhaps Daniel or one of the other Jews in captivity played a role in his deliverance. The archaeological record, concerning the Babylonian King Nabonidus (who we have discussed in earlier posts, and who is believed by some to be the source of this account concerning Nebuchadnezzar) mentions that Jews, or the Jewish God, were involved in his healing from madness.

Did the Babylonian Empire then became Jewish? No. In fact, when we pick up with chapter 5, there is a new King in Babylon and he begins learning the same things, regarding the Jewish God, that his predecessor learned.

One final thought re: chapter 4. Did Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan Babylonian King, really write a chapter of the Bible? Daniel 4 is presented in such a way that this is implied (though whether the reader is intended to believe that, literally, is another question.)

For a quick reminder of the secular beliefs regarding the book’s composition, I’ll point you toward wiki:

It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish community in Babylon and Mesopotamia in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (5th to 3rd centuries BCE), expanded in the Maccabean era (mid-2nd century BCE) by the visions in chapters 7–12. The tales are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar.

Modern scholarship agrees that Daniel is a legendary figure; it is possible that this name was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

If this is correct, then Nebuchadnezzar need not be the writer. It’s just part of the collected folktale. However, there is a similar work to this chapter, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, called the Prayer of Nabonidus. As a result, some believe that a Babylonian King did write a text like that found in Daniel 4, however, the attribution here is given to the incorrect King.

Daniel 4 and the Prayer of Nabonidus

The Prayer of Nabonidus is a fragmentary story from the Dead Sea Scrolls (scroll 4QPrNab) with close parallels to Daniel 4. Told in the first person by King Nabonidus of Babylon (reigned 556–539 BCE), it tells how he was smitten by an inflammation for seven years while in the oasis-city of Tayma, in north-western Arabia, and how a Jewish seer explains to him that this is because he is an idol-worshiper. Another passage, extremely fragmented, apparently introduces a dream narrative. The parallels with the history of Nabonidus are extremely close, and while Daniel 4 is not based on the Prayer, it is likely that it is a variant of an original Jewish story in which Nabonidus, and not Nebuchadnezzar, was the king

As mentioned in a previous post, there is a period in time, in the archaeological record, where Nebuchadnezzar appears to go inactive. Is it possible that more than one Babylonian King suffered from temporary insanity? Certainly. Sometimes those things are hereditary. There is just less evidence for it with Nebuchadnezzar and thus a lot of scholars contend that Daniel 4 is actually about Nabonidus.

Chapter 5 of Daniel is regarded by many as one of the strongest arguments in favor of an early dating for the text. We’ll cover that when we get there.