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 5:13-16
13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. 14 I have heard of you that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. 16 But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
______________________________
This scene is interesting for a few reasons. First, it appears that the King of Babylon was unfamiliar with Daniel. This is a big strange given Daniel’s history. Second, he is now promising to re-bestow now to Daniel something that had already been bestowed upon him. Does that mean Daniel’s position was at some point taken away? We should assume as much.
Another note here is that Belshazzar refers to Nebuchadnezzar as his father. Historical records suggest that the father of Belshazzar was Nabonidus. To that end, the book of Daniel refers to a madness for Nebuchadnezzar that history shows was actually suffered by Nabonidus. Are these two men being conflated, in error, or is more going on?
Let’s jump into the verses with a comment from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary on verse 13:
(13) And the king spake.—The words of the queen-mother, especially her mention of the circumstance that Daniel’s name had been changed to Beltehazzar, at once recalls the whole of the circumstances to the king’s mind. That Belshazzar knew him by reputation is plain from the description given of him at the end of the verse: “which art of the children of the captivity of Judah.”
Art thou that Daniel?—He calls him by his Hebrew name, so as to avoid one which sounded so much like his own. Daniel was now nearly ninety years of age.
The note gives us a reminder that Daniel at this time is almost ninety years old. Perhaps he has somewhat retired in his old age and that fact serves as a partial explanation for why Belshazzar had not yet met him.
Unfortunately (for him and for Babylon) that is likely not a sufficient explanation where God is concerned. In fact, we’ll see as we go forward in the book that Daniel still possessed quite a bit of vigor. He clearly should not have been kept away from the governing of the nation.
We’ll look next at the note covering these verses from The Pulpit Commentaries:
Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing; and I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts; now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. There is a great deal of rhetoric in this, and the attempt to restore the stately etiquette of the Babylonian court. The king is represented as repeating very much what his mother had told him. It is to be observed that, although the queen-mother—as the Massoretic text records her words—has not spoken a word of Daniel’s origin, and implies that Belshazzar knew noticing of him, yet when he comes, Belshazzar addresses him as knowing who and whence he is. The suspicion that is engendered by the mere reading of the text as we have it is confirmed by a study of the Septuagint text, where these four verses shrink into very modest dimensions, “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? and I will clothe thee with purple, and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” The brevity of this, the utter want of rhetoric, not to speak of its dramatic verisimilitude to the speech of a man beside himself with terror, make it the more probable text. Condensation was rarely the work of a falsarius; he might omit statements that were antagonistic to some preconceived notion, or, if only a leaf or so remained of a parchment otherwise filled up, he might endeavour to utilize the space left him by putting down as much as he could of some work he valued. Then, in such a case, a copyist might really condense. But neither of these causes can explain the omission of the rhetorical passages here. We are compelled, then, to regard the text behind the Septuagint in this place as the true Daniel. Theodotion, while on the whole agreeing with the text of the Massoretes, is briefer in some respects. There is one addition, the insertion of “magicians” between “wise men and “astrologers. This shows the process of the evolution of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, though but little, if at all, later than Theodotion, is in yet closer agreement with the text of the Massoretes. Yet the Massoretic text shows certain peculiarities. The presence of ,נ in the second personal pronoun, which was disappearing from Targumic, but is regularly found in Daniel, is to be observed. Further, there is אב with the suffix of the first person, which is not Targumic, but is found in the Sindschirli inscription. In the Targums it is אבא, not אבי, as in Genesis 9:1-34, Onkelos. Eastern Aramaic retained it, as may be seen in the Peshitta Version of the passage before us, and of that to which we have referred. This is another of the many slight indications which all point to the Eastern origin of the Book or’ Daniel. It may be observed that we have not here תַּלְתִּי (tal’ti), but תַּלְתָּא (tal’ta). This is regarded by Behrmann as status empbaticus. The king in his terror makes appeal to one who, perhaps, had been dismissed the court on suspicion of being opposed to the new dynasty. That dynasty had displaced and murdered Evil-Merodach, the son of Daniel’s old master, and one who had shown himself specially favourable to the Jews. As the text of the Septuagint gives the narrative, we have the king eager to have his terrors laid, and, to lead this opponent, whom his father, if not also Neriglissatr, had displaced, and put in opposition to his rule, to look favourably on him, he mentions the reward he offers.
The note here compares and contrasts the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, siding with the Septuagint as more likely to be original than the other, arguing that a copyist is not likely to have removed rhetoric.
The next section begins the condemnation of Belshazzar and the Babylonian Empire as a whole. Daniel will confirm a lot of what we have been able to infer regarding Babylon’s failure to honor the Most High God.