me, made public.” For the king now for the first time distinctly and definitely says that he wishes not only to hear from the wise men the interpretation, but also the dream itself, and declares the punishment that shall visit them in the event of their not being able to comply. הדּמין עבד, μέλη ποιεῖν, 2 Macc. 1:16, lxx in Daniel 3:39, διαμελίζεσθαι, to cut in pieces, a punishment that was common among the Babylonians (Daniel 3:39, cf. Eze 16:40), and also among the Israelites in the case of prisoners of war (cf. 1Sa 15:33). It is not, however, to be confounded with the barbarous custom which was common among the Persians, of mangling particular limbs. נולי, in Ezr 6:11 נולוּ, dunghill, sink. The changing of their houses into dunghills is not to be regarded as meaning that the house built of clay would be torn down, and then dissolved by the rain and storm into a heap of mud, but is to be interpreted according to 2Ki 10:27, where the temple of Baal is spoken of as having been broken down and converted into private closets; cf. Häv. in loco. The Keri תּתעבּדוּן without the Dagesh in בmight stand as the Kethiv for Ithpaal, but is apparently the Ithpeal, as at Dan 3:29; Ezr 6:11. As to בּתּיכון, it is to be remarked that Daniel uses only the suffix forms כון and הון, while with Ezra כם and כן are interchanged (see above, p. 515), which are found in the language of the Targums and might be regarded as Hebraisms, while the forms כון and הון are peculiar to the Syriac and the Samaritan dialects. This distinction does not prove that the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to a period later than that of Ezra (Hitz., v. Leng.), but only that Daniel preserves more faithfully the familiar Babylonian form of the Aramaic than does the Jewish scribe Ezra.
Verse 6
The rigorous severity of this edict accords with the character of Oriental despots and of Nebuchadnezzar, particularly in his dealings with the Jews (2Ki 25:7, 2Ki 25:18.; Jer 39:6., Jer 52:10., 24-27). In the promise of rewards the explanation of נבזבּה (in the plural נבזבּין, Dan 5:17) is disputed; its rendering by “money,” “gold” (by Eichh. and Berth.), has been long ago abandoned as incorrect. The meaning gift, present, is agreeable to the context and to the ancient versions; but its derivation formed from the Chald. בזבז, Pealp. of בּזז, erogavit, expendit, by the substitution of נfor מand the excision of the second זfrom מבזבּזה, in the meaning largitio amplior, the Jod in the plural form being explained from the affinity of verbs ע'ע and ל'ה (Ges. Thes. p. 842, and Kran.), is highly improbable. The derivation from the Persian nuvâzan', 'nuvâzisch, to caress, to flatter, then to make a
