Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 3

Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold - The time when he did this is not mentioned, nor is it stated in whose honor, or for what design, this colossal image was erected. In the Greek and Arabic translations, this is said to have occurred in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not, however, in the original text, nor is it known on what authority it is asserted. Dean Prideaux (Connections, I. 222) supposes that it was at first some marginal comment on the Greek version that eventually crept into the text, and that there was probably some good authority for it. If this is the correct account of the time, the event here recorded occurred 587 BC, or, according to the chronology of Prideaux, about nineteen years after the transaction recorded in the previous chapter.

Hales makes the chronology somewhat different, though not essentially. According to him, Daniel was carried to Babylon 586 BC, and the image was set up 569 BC, making an interval from the time that he was carried to Babylon of seventeen years. If the dream (Daniel 2) was explained within three or four years after Daniel was taken to Babylon, the interval between that and this occurrence would be some thirteen or fourteen years.

Calmet makes the captivity of Daniel 602 years BC, the interpretation of the dream 598 BC, and the setting up of the image 556 BC—thus making an interval of more than forty years. It is impossible to determine the time with certainty. However, allowing the shortest-mentioned period as the interval between the interpretation of the dream (Daniel 2) and the erection of this statue, the time would be sufficient to account for the fact that the impression made by that event on the mind of Nebuchadnezzar, in favor of the claims of the true God (Daniel 2:46–47), seems to have been entirely effaced. The two chapters, in order that the right impression may be received on this point, should be read with the recollection that such an interval had elapsed.

At the time when the event here recorded is supposed by Prideaux to have occurred, Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the Jewish war.

From the spoils which he had taken in that expedition in Syria and Palestine, he had the means in abundance of erecting such a colossal statue. At the close of these conquests, nothing would be more natural than that he should wish to erect in his capital some splendid work of art that would signalize his reign, record the memory of his conquests, and add to the magnificence of the city.

The word which is here rendered “image” (Chaldee צלם tselēm - Greek εἰκόνα eikona), in the usual form in the Hebrew, means a shade, shadow; then what shadows forth anything; then an image of anything, and then an “idol,” as representing the deity worshipped. It is not necessary to suppose that it was of solid gold, for the amount required for such a structure would have been immense, and probably beyond the means even of Nebuchadnezzar. The presumption is that it was merely covered over with plates of gold, for this was the usual manner in which statues erected in honor of the gods were made. .

It is not known in honor of whom this statue was erected. Grotius supposed that it was erected to the memory of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and observes that it was customary to erect statues in this manner in honor of parents. Prideaux, Hales, the editor of the “Pictorial Bible,” and most others, suppose that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity worshipped in Babylon. (See the notes at Isaiah 46:1). Some have supposed that it was in honor of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and that he purposed by it to be worshipped as a god. But this opinion has little probability in its favor.

The opinion that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity of the place, is in every way the most probable. This derives some confirmation from the well-known fact that a magnificent image of this kind was, at some period of his reign, erected by Nebuchadnezzar in honor of this god, in a style to correspond with the magnificence of the city.

The account of this given by Herodotus is the following: “The temple of Jupiter Belus, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen, is a square building, each side of which is two furlongs. In the middle rises a tower, of the solid depth and height of one furlong; upon which, resting as upon a base, seven other smaller towers are built in regular succession. The ascent is on the outside, which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient resting place. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch, magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no statue in the place. In this temple there is also a small chapel, lower in the building, which contains a figure of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large table before him; these, with the base of the table, and the seat of the throne, are all of the purest gold, and are estimated by the Chaldeans to be worth eight hundred talents.

“On the outside of this chapel there are two altars: one is gold, the other is of immense size and appropriated to the sacrifice of full-grown animals; only those which have not yet left their dams may be offered on the golden altar. On the larger altar, at the anniversary festival in honor of their god, the Chaldeans regularly consume incense to the amount of a thousand talents.

“There was formerly in this temple a statue of solid gold twelve cubits high; this, however, I mention from the information of the Chaldeans, and not from my own knowledge.” - Clio, 183.

Diodorus Siculus, a much later writer, speaks to this effect: “Of the tower of Jupiter Belus, the historians who have spoken have given different descriptions; and this temple being now entirely destroyed, we cannot speak accurately respecting it. It was excessively high, constructed throughout with great care, and built of brick and bitumen.

“Semiramis placed on the top of it three statues of massive gold, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. Jupiter was erect, in the attitude of a man walking; he was forty feet in height and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents. Rhea, who sat in a chariot of gold, was of the same weight. Juno, who stood upright, weighed eight hundred talents.” - B. ii.

The temple of Bel or Belus in Babylon stood until the time of Xerxes. On his return from the Grecian expedition, he demolished the whole of it and reduced it to rubble, having first plundered it of its immense riches.

Among the spoils he took from the temple are mentioned several images and statues of massive gold, including the one Diodorus Siculus mentioned as being forty feet high. (See Strabo, Book 16, p. 738; Herodotus, Book 1; Arrian, De Expeditione Alexandri, Book 7, quoted by Prideaux I. 240).

It is not very probable that the image Xerxes removed was the same one Nebuchadnezzar erected in the plain of Dura (compare the Introduction to this chapter, Section I. VII. (a)). However, the fact that such a colossal statue was found in Babylon may be adduced as one incidental corroboration of the probability of the statement here.

It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar was led to the construction of this image by what he had seen in Egypt, as the editor of Calmet’s “Dictionary” has remarked (Taylor, vol. iii. p. 194).

He had conquered and ravaged Egypt only a few years before this and had doubtless been struck by the wonders of art he had seen there.

Colossal statues in honor of the gods abounded, and nothing would be more natural than for Nebuchadnezzar to wish to make his capital rival everything he had seen in Thebes. Nor is it improbable that, while he sought to make his image more magnificent and costly than even those in Egypt, the sculptural style would be about the same, and the “figure” of the statue might be borrowed from what had been seen in Egypt. (See the statues of the two celebrated colossal figures of Amunoph III standing in the plains of Goorneh, Thebes, one of which is known as the Vocal Memnon).

These colossi, exclusive of the pedestals (partially buried), are forty-seven feet high and eighteen feet three inches wide across the shoulders. According to Wilkinson, they are each of one single block and contain about 11,500 cubic feet of stone. They are made of a stone not found within several days’ journey from where they are erected. Calmet refers to these statues, quoting from Norden.

Whose height was threescore cubits - Prideaux and others have been greatly perplexed at the “proportions” of the image here represented. Prideaux says on the subject (Connections, I. 240, 241), “Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image is indeed said in Scripture to have been sixty cubits, that is, ninety feet high; but this must be understood of the image and pedestal both together. For since that image is said to be only six cubits broad or thick, it is impossible that the image could have been sixty cubits high, for that makes its height ten times its breadth or thickness, which exceeds all the proportions of a man, as no man’s height is more than six times his thickness, measuring the slenderest man living at the waist.

“But where the breadth of this image was measured is not said; perhaps it was from shoulder to shoulder. Then the proportion of six cubits breadth will bring down the height exactly to the measure Diodorus has mentioned; for as the usual height of a man is four and a half times his breadth between the shoulders, if the image were six cubits broad between the shoulders, it must, according to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty and a half feet.”

The statue itself, therefore, according to Prideaux, was forty feet high, and the pedestal fifty feet. But this, says Taylor, the editor of Calmet, is a disproportion of parts that, if not absolutely impossible, is utterly contradictory to every principle of art, even of the most basic sort.

To meet the difficulty, Taylor himself supposes that the height referred to in the description was “proportional” rather than “actual” height. That is, if it had stood upright, it would have been sixty cubits, though its actual elevation in a sitting posture may have been little more than thirty cubits, or fifty feet.

He supposes the breadth was the depth or thickness measured from the breast to the back, rather than the breadth measured from shoulder to shoulder. (His argument and illustration may be seen in Calmet, vol. iii. Frag. 156).

It is not absolutely certain, however, that the image was in a sitting posture, and the “natural” construction of the passage is that the statue was actually sixty cubits in height.

No one can doubt that an image of that height could be erected. When we remember the one at Rhodes, which was 105 Grecian feet in height (see the article “Colossus” in Anthon’s “Classical Dictionary”), and Nebuchadnezzar’s desire to adorn his capital in the most magnificent manner, it is not improbable that an image of this height was erected.

What the height of the pedestal was, if it stood on any (as it probably did), is impossible now to tell.

The length of the “cubit” was not the same in every place. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and M. Pelletier, was twenty-one inches, but others fix it at eighteen. - Calmet.

The Talmudists say that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one quarter than the Roman. Herodotus says that the cubit in Babylon was three fingers longer than the usual one (Clio, 178). Still, there is no absolute certainty on that subject. The usual and probable measurement of the cubit would make the image in Babylon about ninety feet high.

And the breadth thereof six cubits - About nine feet. This would, of course, make the height ten times the breadth, which Prideaux says is entirely contrary to the usual proportions of a man. It is not known on what “part” of the image this measurement was made, or whether it was the thickness from the breast to the back, or the width from shoulder to shoulder. If the “thickness” of the image is referred to here by the word “breadth,” the proportion would be well preserved.

“The thickness of a well-proportioned man,” says Scheuchzer (Knupfer Bibel, in loc.), “measured from the breast to the back is one-tenth of his height.” This was understood to be the proportion by Augustine (De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 26).

The word rendered here as “breadth” (Chaldee פתי pethay) occurs nowhere else in the Chaldee of the Scriptures, except in Ezra 6:3: Let the house be builded, the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits.

Perhaps this refers to the “depth” of the temple from front to rear, as Taylor has remarked, rather than to the breadth from one side to another. If it does, it would correspond with the measurement of Solomon’s temple, and it is not probable that Cyrus would vary from that plan in his instructions to build a new temple.

If that is the true construction, then the meaning here may be, as remarked above, that the image was of that “thickness,” and the breadth from shoulder to shoulder may not be referred to.

He set it up in the plain of Dura - It would seem from this that it was set up in an open plain, and not in a temple; perhaps not near a temple. It was not unusual to erect images in this manner, as the colossal figure at Rhodes shows. Where this plain was, it is of course impossible now to determine.

The Greek translation of the word is Δεειρᾷ Deeira. Jerome says that Theodotion’s translation is “Deira;” Symmachus’s, “Doraum;” and the Septuagint’s, περίβολον peribolon—which he says may be rendered vivarium vel conclusum locum.

“Interpreters commonly,” says Gesenius, “compare Dura, a city mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (25.6), situated on the Tigris; and another of like name in Polybius (5.48), on the Euphrates, near the mouth of the Chaboras.”

It is not necessary to suppose that this was in the “city” of Babylon. Indeed, it is probable that it was not, as the “province of Babylon” doubtless embraced more than the city. An extensive plain seems to have been selected, perhaps near the city, as a place where the monument would be more conspicuous and where larger numbers could convene for the homage that was to be shown to it.

In the province of Babylon - One of the provinces, or departments, embracing the capital, into which the empire was divided (Daniel 2:48).

Then, Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes - It is difficult now, if not impossible, to determine the exact meaning of the words used here with reference to the various officers designated; and it is not material that it should be done. The general sense is, that he assembled the great officers of the realm to do honor to the image. The object was doubtless to make the occasion as magnificent as possible.

Of course, if these high officers were assembled, an immense multitude of the people would congregate also. That this was contemplated, and that it in fact occurred, is apparent from Daniel 3:4 and Daniel 3:7. The word rendered “princes” (אחשׁדרפניא 'ăchash^edar^ep^enayâ') occurs only in Daniel, in Ezra, and in Esther.

In Daniel 3:2-3, Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:1–4, Daniel 6:6–7, it is uniformly rendered “princes;” in Ezra 8:36; Esther 3:12; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3, it is uniformly rendered “lieutenants.” The word means, according to Gesenius (Lexicon), “satraps, the governors or viceroys of the large provinces among the ancient Persians, possessing both civil and military power, and being in the provinces the representatives of the sovereign, whose state and splendor they also rivaled.” The etymology of the word is not certainly known. The Persian word “satrap” seems to have been the foundation of this word, with some slight modifications adapting it to the Chaldee mode of pronunciation.

The governors - סגניא sı̂g^enayâ'. This word is rendered “governors” in Daniel 2:48 (see the note at that place), and in Daniel 3:3, Daniel 3:27, and Daniel 6:7. It does not elsewhere occur. The Hebrew word corresponding to this—סגנים s^egânı̂ym—occurs frequently, and is rendered “rulers” in every place except Isaiah 41:25, where it is rendered “princes:”Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:14 (7); Nehemiah 5:7, 5:17; Nehemiah 7:5; Jeremiah 51:23, 51:28, 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6, 23:12, 23:23, et al. The office was evidently one that was inferior to that of the “satrap,” or governor of a whole province.

And the captains - פחותא pachăvâtâ'. This word, wherever it occurs in Daniel, is rendered “captains,”Daniel 3:2–3, Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:7; wherever else it occurs it is rendered “governor,”Ezra 5:3, Ezra 5:6, Ezra 5:14; Ezra 6:6–7, Ezra 6:13.

The Hebrew word corresponding to this (פחה pechâh) occurs frequently, and is also rendered indifferently “governor” or “captain:” 1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chronicles 9:14; Ezra 8:36; 1 Kings 20:24; Jeremiah 51:23, 51:28, 51:57, et al. It refers to the governor of a province smaller than a satrapy, and is applied to officers in the Assyrian empire, 2 Kings 18:24; Isaiah 36:9; in the Chaldean, Ezekiel 23:6, 23:23; Jeremiah 51:23; and in the Persian, Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3. The word “captains” does not now very accurately express the sense. The office was not exclusively military, and was of a higher grade than would be denoted by the word “captain,” with us.

The judges - אדרגזריא 'ădar^egâz^erayâ'. This word occurs only here and in Daniel 3:3. It means properly great or “chief judges”—compounded of two words signifying “greatness” and “judges.” See Gesenius (Lexicon).

The treasurers - גדבריא g^edâb^erayâ'. This word occurs nowhere else. The word גזבר gizbâr—however, the same word with a slight change in the pronunciation—occurs in Ezra 1:8 and Ezra 7:21, and denotes “treasurer.” It is derived from a word (גנז gânaz) which means to hide, to hoard, or to lay up in store.

The counselors - דתבריא d^ethâb^erayâ'. This word occurs nowhere else, except in Daniel 3:3. It means one skilled in the law; a judge. The office was evidently inferior to the one denoted by the word “judges.”

The sheriffs - A sheriff with us is a county officer, to whom is entrusted the administration of the laws. In England the office is judicial as well as ministerial. With us it is merely ministerial. The duty of the sheriff is to execute the civil and criminal processes throughout the county. He has charge of the jail and prisoners, and attends courts, and keeps the peace.

It is not to be supposed that the officer here referred to in Daniel corresponds precisely with this. The word used (תפתיא tı̂ptâyē') occurs nowhere else. It means, according to Gesenius, persons learned in the law; lawyers. The office had a close relation to that of “Mufti” among the Arabs, the term being derived from the same word, and properly means “a wise man; one whose response is equivalent to law.”

And all the rulers of the provinces - The term here used is a general term. It would apply to any kind of officers or rulers and is probably designed to embrace all that had not been specified. The object was to assemble the chief officers of the realm.

Jacchiades has compared the officers here enumerated with the principal officers of the Turkish empire, and supposes that a counterpart to them may be found in that empire. See the comparison in Grotius, in loc. He supposes that the officers last denoted under the title of “rulers of the provinces” were similar to the Turkish “Zangiahos” or “viziers.” Grotius supposes that the term refers to the rulers of cities and places adjacent to cities—a dominion of lesser extent and importance than that of the rulers of provinces.

To come to the dedication of the image ... - The public setting it apart to the purposes for which it was erected. This was to be done with solemn music, and in the presence of the principal officers of the kingdom. Until it was dedicated to the god in whose honor it was erected, it would not be regarded as an object of worship. It is easy to conceive that such an occasion would bring together an immense concourse of people, and that it would be one of peculiar magnificence.

And they stood before the image - In the presence of the image. They were drawn up, doubtless, so as, at the same time, to have the best view of the statue, and to make the most imposing appearance.

Then a herald cried aloud - Margin, as in Chaldee, "with might." He made a loud proclamation. A "herald" here means a public crier.

To you it is commanded - Margin, "they commanded." Literally, "to you commanding" (plural); that is, the king has commanded.

O people, nations, and languages - The empire of Babylon was made up of different nations, speaking quite different languages. The representatives of these nations were assembled on this occasion, and the command would extend to all. There was evidently no exception made in favor of the scruples of any, and the order would include the Hebrews as well as others.

It should be observed, however, that none but the Hebrews would have any scruples on the subject. They were all accustomed to worship idols, and the worship of one god did not prevent their doing homage also to another. It accorded with the prevailing views of idolaters that there were many gods, that there were tutelary divinities presiding over particular people, and that it was not improper to render homage to the god of any people or country.

Though, therefore, they might themselves worship other gods in their own countries, they would have no scruples about worshipping also the one that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. In this respect the Jews were an exception. They acknowledged only one God; they believed that all others were false gods, and it was a violation of the fundamental principles of their religion to render homage to any other.

That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet—It would not be practical to determine with precision what kind of musical instruments are denoted by the words used in this verse. They were, doubtless, in many respects different from those which are in use now, though they may have belonged to the same general class and may have been constructed on substantially the same principles. A full inquiry into the kinds of musical instruments in use among the Hebrews may be found in the various treatises on the subject in Ugolin’s “Thesau Ant. Sacra.” tom. xxxii. Compare also the notes at Isaiah 5:12. The Chaldee word rendered “cornet”—קרנא qar^enâ'—the same as the Hebrew word קרן qeren—means a “horn,” as, for example, of an ox, stag, or ram.

It then means a wind instrument of music resembling a horn, or perhaps horns were at first literally used. Similar instruments are now used, such as the “French horn,” etc.

Flute—משׁרוקיתא mash^erôqı̂ythâ'. Greek, σύριγγός suringos. Vulgate, fistula, pipe. The Chaldee word occurs nowhere else but in this chapter (Daniel 3:5, Daniel 3:7, Daniel 3:10, Daniel 3:15) and is in each instance rendered “flute.” It probably denoted all the instruments of the pipe or flute class in use among the Babylonians. The corresponding Hebrew word is חליל châlı̂yl. See this explained in the notes at Isaiah 5:12.

The following remarks from the Editor of the “Pictorial Bible” explain the usual construction of ancient pipes or flutes:

“The ancient flutes were cylindrical tubes, sometimes of equal diameter throughout, but often wider at the far end than the near end, and sometimes widened at that end into a funnel shape, resembling a clarinet. They were always blown, like pipes, at one end, never transversely; they had mouthpieces, and sometimes plugs or stoppers, but no keys to open or close the holes beyond the reach of the hands. The holes varied in number in the different varieties of the flute.

In their origin they were doubtless made of simple reeds or canes, but in the progress of improvement they came to be made of wood, ivory, bone, and even metal. They were sometimes made in joints, but connected by an interior nozzle which was generally of wood. The flutes were sometimes double, that is, a person played on two instruments at once, either connected or detached; and among the Classical ancients the player on the double-flute often had a leather bandage over his mouth to prevent the escape of his breath at the corners. The ancient Egyptians used the double-flute.”

Illustrations of the flute or pipe may be seen in the notes at Isaiah 5:12. Very full and interesting descriptions of the musical instruments used among the Egyptians may be found in Wilkinson’s “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” vol. ii. pp. 222-327.

Harp—On the form of the “harp,” see the notes at Isaiah 5:12. Compare Wilkinson, as quoted above. The harp was one of the earliest musical instruments invented (Genesis 4:21). The Chaldee word used here is not the common Hebrew word for the harp (כנור kinnôr), but is a word that does not occur in Hebrew—קיתרוס qayth^erôs. This occurs nowhere else in Chaldee, and it is manifestly the same as the Greek κιθάρα kithara—and the Latin cithara, denoting a harp.

Whether the Chaldees derived it from the Greeks, or the Greeks from the Chaldees, however, cannot be determined with certainty. It has been made an objection to the genuineness of the book of Daniel that the instruments referred to here were instruments bearing Greek names. See Introduction to chapter, Section II. IV. (c) (5).

Sackbut—Vulgate, Sambuca. Greek, like the Vulgate, σαμβύκη sambukē. These words are merely different forms of writing the Chaldee word סבכא sabb^ekâ'. The word occurs nowhere else except in this chapter. It seems to have denoted a stringed instrument similar to the lyre or harp. Strabo affirms that the Greek word σαμβύκη sambukē—“sambyke,” is of barbarian, that is, of Oriental origin.

The Hebrew word from which this word is not improperly derived—סבך sâbak—means “to interweave, to entwine, to plait,” as, for example, branches; and it is possible that this instrument may have derived its name from the “intertwining” of the strings. Compare Gesenius on the word. Passow defines the Greek word σαμβύκη sambukē—sambuca (Latin)—to mean a triangular-stringed instrument that made the highest notes or had the highest key, but as an instrument which, on account of the shortness of the strings, was not esteemed as very valuable and had little power.

Porphyry and Suidas describe it as a triangular instrument, furnished with cords of unequal length and thickness. The Classical writers mention it as very ancient and ascribe its invention to the Syrians. Musonius describes it as having a sharp sound; and we are told that it was often used to accompany the voice in singing Iambic verses—Pictorial Bible. It seems to have been a species of triangular lyre or harp.

Psaltery—The Chaldee is פסנתרין p^esantērı̂yn. Greek, ψαλτήριον psaltērion; Vulgate, psalterium. All these words manifestly have the same origin, and it has been on the ground that this word, among others, is of Greek origin, that the genuineness of this book has been called in question. The word occurs nowhere else but in this chapter (Daniel 3:5, Daniel 3:7, Daniel 3:10, Daniel 3:15).

The Greek translators often use the word ψαλτήριον psaltērion—psaltery—for נבל nebel—and כנור kinnôr; and the instrument referred to here was doubtless of the harp kind. For the kind of instrument denoted by the נבל nebel—see the notes at Isaiah 5:12. Compare the illustrations in the Pictorial Bible on Psalms 92:3.

It has been alleged that this word is of Greek origin, and hence an objection has been urged against the genuineness of the book of Daniel on the presumption that, at the early period when this book is supposed to have been written, Greek musical instruments had not been introduced into Chaldea. For a general reply to this, see the Introduction, section I, II, (d). It may be remarked further, in regard to this objection:

1. That it is not absolutely certain that the word is derived from the Greek. See Pareau, l.c. p. 424, as quoted in Hengstenberg, “Authentic des Daniel,” p. 16.

2. It cannot be demonstrated that there were no Greeks in the regions of Chaldea as early as this. Indeed, it is more than probable that there were. See Hengstenberg, p. 16 and following.

Nebuchadnezzar summoned to this celebration the principal personages throughout the realm, and it is probable that all known forms of music, whether of domestic or foreign origin, would have been gathered on such an occasion.

Dulcimer—סומפניה sûmpôn^eyâh. This word occurs only here and in Daniel 3:10 and Daniel 3:15. In the margin it is rendered “symphony” or “singing.” It is the same as the Greek word συμφωνία sumphōnia—“symphony,” and in Italy the same musical instrument is now called by a name of the same origin, zampogna, and in Asia Minor zambonja.

It probably corresponded to the Hebrew עוגב ‛ûgâb, rendered “organ,” in Genesis 4:21; Job 21:12; Job 30:31; and Psalms 150:4. See the notes at Job 21:12. Compare the tracts on Hebrew musical instruments inscribed schilte haggibborim in Ugolin, Thesau. vol. xxxii. The word seems to have had a Greek origin and is one of those on which an objection has been founded against the genuineness of the book.

Compare the Introduction, Section I. II. (c). The word “dulcimer” means “sweet” and would denote some musical instrument characterized by the sweetness of its tones.

Johnson (Dictionary) describes the instrument as one that is “played by striking brass wires with little sticks.” The Greek word would properly denote a concert or harmony of many instruments, but the word here is evidently used to denote a single instrument. Gesenius describes it as a double pipe with a sack: a bagpipe.

Servius (on Virgil, Aeneid xi. 27) describes the “symphonia” as a bagpipe, and the Hebrew writers speak of it as a bagpipe consisting of two pipes thrust through a leather bag and affording a mournful sound. It may be added that this is the same name which the bagpipe had among the Moors in Spain; and all these circumstances concur to show that this was probably the instrument intended here.

“The modern Oriental bagpipe is composed of a goatskin, usually with the hair on, and in the natural form, but deprived of the head, the tail, and the feet; being thus of the same shape as that used by the water-carriers. The pipes are usually of reeds, terminating in the tips of cows’ horns slightly curved; the whole instrument being most primitively simple in its materials and construction.”—“Pictorial Bible.”

And all kinds of music—All other kinds. It is not probable that all the instruments employed on that occasion were actually enumerated. Only the principal instruments are mentioned, and among them those which showed that instruments of foreign origin were employed on the occasion.

From the following extract from Chardin, it will be seen that the account here is not an improbable one and that such things were not uncommon in the East:

“At the coronation of Soliman, king of Persia, the general of the musketeers, having whispered for some moments in the king’s ear, among several other things of lesser importance, gave out that both the loud and soft music should play in the two balconies upon the top of the great building which stands at one end of the royal palace, called “kaisarie,” or imperial palace.

No nation was dispensed with, whether Persians, Indians, Turks, Muscovites, Europeans, or others; which was immediately done. And this same “tintamarre,” or confusion of instruments, which sounded more like the noise of war than music, lasted twenty days together, without intermission or interruption by night; this number of twenty days was observed to correspond to the young monarch’s age, who was then twenty years of age,” p. 51; quoted in Taylor’s “Fragments to Calmet’s Dictionary.” No. 485.

It may also be observed that in such an assemblage of instruments, nothing would be more probable than that there would be some having names of foreign origin, perhaps names whose origin was to be found in nations not represented there. But if this should occur, it would not be proper to set the fact down as an argument against the authenticity of the history of Sir John Chardin; nor, similarly, should the similar fact revealed here be regarded as an argument against the genuineness of the book of Daniel.

Ye shall fall down and worship—That is, you shall render “religious homage.” See these words explained in the notes at Daniel 2:46. This shows, that whether this image was erected in honor of Belus or of Nabopolassar, it was designed that he in whose honor it was erected should be worshipped as a god.