(5) Is gone from me.--This difficult word, the etymology of which is very uncertain, appears only here and Daniel 2:8. It seems to mean, "The order has been published by me (comp. Esther 7:7; Isaiah 45:23), and therefore cannot be recalled."
Cut in pieces.--This was by no means an uncommon form of punishment: (See Smith's Assurbanipal, pp. 137, 245.)
Verse 5 - The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The version of the LXX. has slight but important differences from the Massoretic text. It is as follows "And the king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if therefore ye do not tell me the dream truly and show me the interpretation thereof, ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the royal treasury." Theodotion renders the last portion of the verse, "ye shall be destroyed (εἰς ἀπώλειανἔσεσθε), and your houses shall be plundered (διαρπαγήσονται)." The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, but, like Theodotion, softens the last clause into "plundered." The Vulgate retains the fierceness of the Massoretic, softened merely in phrase, not in meaning. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me. The first thing to be noticed is the difference of the Q'ri and the K'thib in the word "Chaldean;" it is written כשׂדיא, according to the Syriac usage, not כשׂדאי according to the Chaldee. As the Book of Daniel was copied and recopied many times, probably at least scores of' times before, on the latest assignable critic d date of Daniel, the Massoretic text was fixed, and copied mainly by those whose language was Western not Eastern Aramaic. the occurrence of Syriac forms is more likely to be survivals from a Syriac original than insertions, either accidental or intentional. When the differences are so slight as those between Eastern and Western Aramaic, the tendency is to remove them rather than to accentuate them. The older interpretation of mill tha, "thing" or "word," was to take it as referring to the dream - that it was the matter that had gone from him. This, however, depends to a large degree on the moaning to be attached to ozda. Is it to be regarded as equivalent to azla, as if it were derived from אֲזַל, "to go;" or is azda to be regarded as Persian azdu, "sure," "diligent"? Delitzsch suggests azanda. "known." The two Greek versions render, ὁ λόγος ἀπ ἐμοῦἀπέστη, a phrase which may either be "the word has gone from me," or "the matter has departed from me," the latter being the more natural, from the meaning of ἀφίστημι. The Peshitta rendering is, "Sure is the word I have spoken." The older commentators have mainly taken this sentence as asserting that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream; Calvin. however, does so only because he feels himself compelled to take ver. 8 as meaning this; while Jephet-ibn-Ali and others assume this to be the meaning of the phrase. Aben Ezra takes azda as meaning "firm" or sure. Berthohlt, among moderns, maintains that millitha is "the dream." Most others assert the sentence to mean, "The word which has gone forth from me is sure;" this is also Professor Bevan's interpretation. Hitzig's view here is peculiar: he would translate, "For the matter is important to me." This view does not suit ver. 8. The lexicons differ in this. Winer first gives elapsus est, abiit, then adds, "unless rather it be derived from the Arabic (atzad), 'strong,' or from the Rabbinic אָזַד, robustus." Buxtorf does give the alleged Rabbinic use of the verb, but gives reference only to occurrence in the passage before us and ver. 8, and renders abire. Gesenius renders, "to depart," and quotes in support of this the Rabbinic formula, אזדא לטצמים, "to go to one's own opinion," spoken of a rabbi who holds a view not shared by any other. At the same time, Gesenius gives a meaning to the clause as a whole which accords with that of most commentators, "The word has gone out from me." Furst takes the word as meaning "firm," "sure," "unalterable." He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, as if it confirmed his view, which really it does not. Castell gives as robur, but appends no reference. Brockelmann does not give it at all, nor does Levy. Had Castell given any reference, it might have been argued to be a survival of a Syriac word through transcription; but we must remain in doubt in this, all the more so that the Peshitta does not transfer the word, which it would naturally have done had the word been extant in Syriac in A.D. . This would make it probable that it is an old word. The fact that it is used in Talmudic only in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable to the present passage, confirms the idea of its age. It had probably a technical meaning, denoting that a certain matter was irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the word is by no means certain, though supported by Schrader and Noehleke. It may have a Shemitic root. אזז (azoz) Assyrian (Schrader, 526), "to be firm," may be the Assyrian form of the word, which becomes אזד in Syriac, and אזדא in status emphatieus. In Aramaic ז of Hebrew becomes ד, as זָהַב (zabab) and דְהַב (dehab), "gold." The Assyrian use of sibilants is more akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Sa, "this," is equivalent to זֶה (zeh), Schrader, 'Keiln.,' 586. If אזז were transferred from Assyrian and put in the status emphaticus, אַזְדָא is not an unlikely form for it to assume. Even grant the word to be Persian, it is far from proving, or even rendering it probable, that Daniel was composed in the days of the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian producing much effect on the language of the numerous peoples that were subject to the Persian empire. There is no sign that the word was known in Palestine during the time when the Targums were becoming fixed. In Alexandria, where the Septuagint version of Daniel was made, the meaning of the word was not known, and was thought to be equivalent to אזל (azal). In Asia Minor, where Theodotion made his version, it was unknown. Jerome, who made his version, if not in Palestine, yet under Pales-tinian guidance, translates it also as equivalent to azal. The natural conclusion is that this book must have been composed not later than the Persian period, and not far from the centre of government. As we have already said, our interpretation agrees with that of Professor Bevan; we would render the phrase, "The word which has gone forth from me," i.e., "is fixed." The reason of the king's refusal to tell the wise men his dream is that he cannot do it, net because he has forgotten it, but because he has already announced that he wishes these soothsayers to prove their ability to give the interpretation of the dream by telling him what the dream was which he had had. He has committed himself to that course; he is a king, and he may not change, If ye will not make known to me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be opposed or refused anything, at once determines that it is not inability to tell him what he wishes to know that hinders the soothsayers, but unwillingness. Of course, the abruptness of the action, immediate sentence pronounced on their hesitating to satisfy his demand, seems improbable. We must, however, remember that we have the account given us in the utmost brevity. We have the substance of the dialogue between the king and his astrologers. It is put in dialogue form simply because the Shemitic tongues naturally lend themselves to this mode of presentation. The sentence, "ye shall be cut in pieces," suggests some of the punishments inflicted by Asshurbanipal on those who rebelled against him. In the Aramaic the meaning literally is, "Ye shall be made pieces of." This is considerably softened in both the Greek versions. In the LXX. the rendering is, Παρὰ δειγματισθήσεσθε, "Ye shall be made an example of." Theodotion renders, Αἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε, "Ye shall be for destruction." The Peshitta is stronger, if anything, from the succession of words, "Piece piece ye shall be cut." The punishment certainly was horrible, but not more so than the punishment David inflicted on the murderers of Ishbosheth. Indeed, in European countries a century and a half ago punishments yet more revolting were frequent. The punishment for treason in our own country was as horrible as anything well could be. The sentence, however, went further than merely the individuals. And your houses shall be made a dunghill. In the 'Records of the Past,' 1:27, 43, are references to something like this. "houses reduced to heaps of rubbish." That the houses thus made heaps of rubbish should therefore be made dunghills, is in perfect accordance with the manners at present holding in the East. The rendering of the Septuagint is very peculiar here, "And your goods shall be escheat to tire royal treasury (καὶὀναληφθήσεται ὑμῶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα εἰς τὸβασιλίκον)." This cannot be due to any desire to soften the meaning, for in the first place, in Daniel 7:29, where the same phrase occurs in the Aramaic, it is paraphrased, but not really changed; it is rendered δημευθήσεται. But further, the meaning here is perfectly different from that in the Aramaic of the Masse,retie recension. Theodotion's rendering is a softening of the Massoretic, "Your houses shall be (διαρπαγήσονται) torn down;" but the Septuagint quite changes the meaning. If the translator had a slightly blurred copy before him, he might read נזלו instead of נולי; that is to say, instead of "a dunghill," he read it as the third person plural pael of the verb אֲזַלַ (azal), "to go." When written in Sama-titan characters, or in old Phoenican characters, the last word would not be unlike למלך, "to the king." This is the only explanation of this variation that seems feasible, and it implies that the manuscript before the Septuagint translator was written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. The pre-formative נ, used as the sign of the third person, is the peculiarity of Eastern Aramaic. The translator must have bad this generally before him in his manuscript, or he never could have made this mistake. This is another indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was originally not Chaldee, but Syriac. We can imagine the striking scene: on the one wide the haughty young conqueror, blazing in indignation at the obstinate refusal, as he counts it, of his soothsayers and augurs to tell him his dream and the meaning of it; on the other, the crouching crowd of magicians, astrologers, and oneiromantists, dispirited and nonplussed. Brought up in an absolute faith in astrology and augury, the king never doubted their ability to tell him his dream; it could only be a treasonable desire to hinder him from taking the suitable steps to avoid whatever danger might be threatened by it, or to gain whatever advantage might be promised. They would not tell him the dream, because by their rules the interpretation would be fixed, and from that they could I not escape. The king will not and cannot reverse his word, and they cannot tell him what he desires, and so they stand facing each other.
2:1-13 The greatest men are most open to cares and troubles of mind, which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound. We know not the uneasiness of many who live in great pomp, and, as others vainly think, in pleasure also. The king said that his learned men must tell him the dream itself, or they should all be put to death as deceivers. Men are more eager to ask as to future events, than to learn the way of salvation or the path of duty; yet foreknowledge of future events increases anxiety and trouble. Those who deceived, by pretending to do what they could not do, were sentenced to death, for not being able to do what they did not pretend to.
The king answered and said to the Chaldeans,.... In the same language they spoke to him:
the thing is gone from me; either the dream was gone from him; it was out of his mind, he had forgot it, and could not call it to remembrance; he had been dreaming of monarchies and kingdoms, which are themselves but dreams and tales, and empty things that pass away, and which he might have learned from hence: or, as it may be rendered, "the word is confirmed by me" (z). Saadiah says, that some observe that the word here used has the signification of strength or firmness; and so Aben Ezra interprets the word, is stable and firm; to which agrees the Syriac version,
"most sure is the word which I pronounce;''
referring not to the dream, but to what follows the king's declaration, both with respect to threatenings and promises:
if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof; the king speaks as if he thought it was in their power, but they were unwilling to do it; though no doubt, had they been able, they would have readily done it, both for their credit and advantage:
ye shall be cut in pieces; not only cut in two, but into various pieces, limb by limb, as Agag by Samuel, and the Ammonites by David; and which was a punishment often inflicted in the eastern nations; as Orpheus was cut to pieces by the Thracian women, and Bessus by order of Alexander the great (a); much the same punishment as, with us, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered:
and your houses shall be made a dunghill; be destroyed, and never rebuilt more, but put to the most contemptible uses: and this was common among the Romans; when any were found plotting against the government, or guilty of treason, they were not only capitally punished, but their houses were pulled down, or the names of them changed; or, however, were not used for dwelling houses; so the house of Caius Cassius was pulled down and demolished for his affectation of government, and for treason; and that of M. Maulins Capitolinus, who was suspected of seizing the government, after he was thrown from the rock, was made a mint of; and that of Spuflus Melius for the same crime, after he had suffered, was by reproach called Aequimelium; and of the like kind many instances are given (b) and so among the Grecians; Pausanias (c) relates of Astylus Crotoniata, that by way of punishment, and as a mark of infamy upon him for a crime he had done, his house was appointed for a public prison. Herodotus (d) reports Leutychides, general of the Lacedemonians in Thessalian expedition, that having received money by way of bribery, for which he was tried and condemned, though he made his escape, his house was demolished; and the same usage and custom remains to this day in France: thus the unhappy Damien, a madman, who of late stabbed the French king; one part of his sentence was, that the house in which he was born should be pulled down, as he himself also was pulled and cut to pieces; see 2 Kings 10:27.
(z) "verbum a me firmum, vel firmatum", Michaelis; "a me decretum et statutum", L'Empereur. (a) Vid. Curtium, l. 7. c. 5. p. 206. (b) Vid. Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 23. (c) Eliac. 2. sive l. 6. p. 366. (d) Erato, sive I. 6. p. 72.
Cut in pieces.--This was by no means an uncommon form of punishment: (See Smith's Assurbanipal, pp. 137, 245.)
the thing is gone from me; either the dream was gone from him; it was out of his mind, he had forgot it, and could not call it to remembrance; he had been dreaming of monarchies and kingdoms, which are themselves but dreams and tales, and empty things that pass away, and which he might have learned from hence: or, as it may be rendered, "the word is confirmed by me" (z). Saadiah says, that some observe that the word here used has the signification of strength or firmness; and so Aben Ezra interprets the word, is stable and firm; to which agrees the Syriac version,
"most sure is the word which I pronounce;''
referring not to the dream, but to what follows the king's declaration, both with respect to threatenings and promises:
if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof; the king speaks as if he thought it was in their power, but they were unwilling to do it; though no doubt, had they been able, they would have readily done it, both for their credit and advantage:
ye shall be cut in pieces; not only cut in two, but into various pieces, limb by limb, as Agag by Samuel, and the Ammonites by David; and which was a punishment often inflicted in the eastern nations; as Orpheus was cut to pieces by the Thracian women, and Bessus by order of Alexander the great (a); much the same punishment as, with us, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered:
and your houses shall be made a dunghill; be destroyed, and never rebuilt more, but put to the most contemptible uses: and this was common among the Romans; when any were found plotting against the government, or guilty of treason, they were not only capitally punished, but their houses were pulled down, or the names of them changed; or, however, were not used for dwelling houses; so the house of Caius Cassius was pulled down and demolished for his affectation of government, and for treason; and that of M. Maulins Capitolinus, who was suspected of seizing the government, after he was thrown from the rock, was made a mint of; and that of Spuflus Melius for the same crime, after he had suffered, was by reproach called Aequimelium; and of the like kind many instances are given (b) and so among the Grecians; Pausanias (c) relates of Astylus Crotoniata, that by way of punishment, and as a mark of infamy upon him for a crime he had done, his house was appointed for a public prison. Herodotus (d) reports Leutychides, general of the Lacedemonians in Thessalian expedition, that having received money by way of bribery, for which he was tried and condemned, though he made his escape, his house was demolished; and the same usage and custom remains to this day in France: thus the unhappy Damien, a madman, who of late stabbed the French king; one part of his sentence was, that the house in which he was born should be pulled down, as he himself also was pulled and cut to pieces; see 2 Kings 10:27.
(z) "verbum a me firmum, vel firmatum", Michaelis; "a me decretum et statutum", L'Empereur. (a) Vid. Curtium, l. 7. c. 5. p. 206. (b) Vid. Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 23. (c) Eliac. 2. sive l. 6. p. 366. (d) Erato, sive I. 6. p. 72.