The Stories of Daniel. 

        Once the real purpose of the narratives in Daniel has been grasped, only a few comments on details are needed.

        In the ancient world it was quite usual to honour one’s god by giving him part of one’s food, specially meat and wine (cf. I Cor 8; 10:19-33; also Lev. 2 and 17:3-9, this latter abro­gated at least in part by Deut. 12:15, 20f). As Nebuchad­nezzar was a religious man, it could be taken for granted that any food that came from his table had been so dedicated. There would have been little or no harm in Daniel and his friends eating this food, but to refuse to do so was one of the few acts of loyalty to Jehovah left open to them (ch. 1).

        It is rather naive to think that Nebuchadnezzar had really forgotten his dream (2:5). He was so impressed by it that he did not want some spur-of-the-moment priestly explanation fobbed off on him. He argued shrewdly that anyone able to tell him his dream would know the explanation as well. The explanation of the dream is dealt with under the visions.

        There is no justification for supposing that the golden (i.e. gold covered) image (3:1) was of Nebuchadnezzar him­self. It will have been of Merodach or Marduk, his favourite god. The absence of Daniel need cause no surprise, for the language of 3:2f must not be stressed. In an empire where it might need months to reach the capital, it would never be possible to gather all the high functionaries of state together in one place at the same time. Provincial rule and international relationships had to be continued. The R.V. is correct in its rendering of 3:25, “like a son of the gods” — the king was a pagan polytheist.

        The LXX bears witness to considerable textual doubt in ch. 4. This may be the explanation for the change from the first to the third person in vers. 19-33. The first person would have been expected throughout.

        The versions, and indeed Daniel’s own explanation, create an element of doubt as to the exact form of the words written on the wall (5:25); (a) was Mene written once or twice? (b) was it Peres (sing), or Parsin (plu. — u equals “and”)? In any case, the doubt affects neither their meaning nor the interpretation of the scene. It seems likely that the words were written in Aramaic (or more probably Hebrew — see above) and that the more educated present had no difficulty in deciphering the letters; owing to the absence of vowels (as normally the case in Semitic writing) they will have read the words: a mina, a shekel, and a half mina (or half minas, or two half minas), which made little sense (a mina was 60 or 50 shekels.).