Illusions of Grandeur: The Instruments of Daniel 3 Reconsidered

Illusions of Grandeur: The Instruments of Daniel 3 Reconsidered1 Michael Lesley University of Maryland, College Park This essay began simply as an attempt to identify the enigmatic instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra. Along the way it became apparent that the study of these instruments was firmly attached to certain entrenched assumptions of biblical interpretation. While these assumptions await future investigation, my hope here is primarily to help the reader hear Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra as its first audience did. I Chapter 3 of the book of Daniel revolves around a strange religious ceremony that involved no priests, prayers or sacrifices: You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, you are to fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. (Dan 3:4b–5 NRSV)2 The only liturgy is the sound of the great orchestra, a signal to the whole empire to bow and venerate a gargantuan golden statue. This musical ensemble has always intrigued interpreters, not only because of its uniqueness in the biblical canon, but because the instruments are as enigmatic as they are unique. 1 This paper was published in Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Yossi Maurey, and Edwin Seroussi, eds., Music in Antiquity: The Near East and the Mediterranean, Yuval. Studies of the Jewish Music Research Centre, Volume 8 (Berlin; Boston : Jerusalem: De Gruyter Oldenbourg ; Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2014). The idea for this paper originated in a class at the Catholic University of America with Professor Douglas Gropp, whom I would like to thank for his kind help and encouragement. I would also like to thank my professors at the University of Maryland, particularly Dr. Adele Berlin, for their unfailing support and guidance. 2 ‫ְלכוֹן ָֽאְמ ִרין ַֽעְמַמָיּא ֻאַמָּיּא ְוִלָשַּׁנ ָֽיּא׃ ְבִּעָדָּנא ִֽדּי ִתְשְׁמעוּן ָקל ַק ְרָנא ַמְשׁרוִֹקיָתא ִקיָתרוֹס ַסְבָּכא ְפַּסְנֵתּ ִרין סוְּמֹפְּנָיה ְוֹכל ְזֵני ְזָמ ָרא ִתְּפּלוּן‬ ‫ְוִתְס ְגּדוּן ְלֶצֶלם ַדֲּהָבא ִדּי ֲהֵקים ְנבוַּכְדֶנַצּר ַמְלָֽכּא׃‬ The names of the instruments — qarna, mashroqita, qatros, sabbecha, psanterin and sumponia (‫ ַק ְרָנא‬,‫ ַמְשׁרוִֹקיָתא‬,‫( ִקיָתרוֹס‬K) ‫( ַקְתרוֹס‬Q) ,‫ ַסְבָּכא‬,‫ ְפַּסְנֵתּ ִרין‬,‫ — )סוְּמֹפְּנָיה‬are mostly Aramaicized versions of Greek instrument names. Although an ample corpus of Greek music literature survives, these instruments still remain a great puzzle; indeed, it is owing to the wealth of information about them that the depth of the problem becomes clear.3 The first instrument, the qarna,4 is the only one attested in other Semitic texts. Translating the name is simple enough, since the English word, ‘horn,’ is etymologically connected to the Aramaic qarna (from Hebrew qeren) via Latin cornu (Montagu 2002: 97). The difficulty lies in identifying the instrument more precisely: What type of horn was it? Was the author imagining a curved horn or a trumpet? Was it made of wood, or bronze or brass? These questions are archeological rather than etymological and lead to a central difficulty in the study of Dan 3: determining the date of composition of the text. Though the story is set in the court of Nebuchadnezzar II, scholars have convincingly argued that the text was composed in the Hellenistic period, five hundred years after Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. If so, should we search in the Neo-Babylonian assemblage of musical instruments or among Hellenistic instruments? The correct horn for this ensemble is presumably the one that would have been used in cultic worship and played alongside the other instruments in one of these periods. The name of the second instrument, mashroqita, is found nowhere else, so its identity can only be speculated.5 It is most likely derived from the onomatopoeic root s-r-q, meaning ‘hiss’ or 3 Since it is impossible to give a thorough history of the interpretation of these instruments in a paper of this scope, these summaries will be restricted for the most part to the difficulties in identifying them without considering the legions of solutions that have been proposed, none of which, I believe, have adequately dealt with the problems considered below. The most recent summary of research on these words can be found in Koch 2005 and Braun 2002. The most thorough and oftcited study to date remains Pierre Grelot’s 1979 article “L’orchestre de Daniel III 5, 7, 10, 15.” See esp. Montagu 2002 on the problem of identifying the instruments. 4 ‫ ;ַק ְרָנא‬OG, θ΄: Σάλπιγγος. 5 ‫ ַמְשׁרוִֹקיָתא‬vv 5, 7, 15 ‫ ַמְשֹׁרִקיָתא‬v 10; OG, θ΄: σύριγγος. ‘whistle.’ The Septuagint translates it into syrinx, also from an onomatopoeic word, syrigmos, and which also means ‘hiss’ or ‘whistle.’ Even if the words are analogous, it does not necessarily follow that the instruments are, too. According to Pierre Grelot, if the mashroqita is the same instrument as the syrinx, the instrument in the ceremony in Dan 3 would have been a pan pipe, a shepherd’s instrument, which is entirely unattested in ancient Near Eastern cultic practice (see Grelot 1979: 27). The qatros appears to be the Greeks’ kithara. As we will see, in transliteration the Greek symphonia retained the vocalization and became the Aramaic symponia, and the sambyka [spelled sambyke elsewhere in this paper] became the sabbecha; why then did the kithara become the qatros?6 Most scholars presume that qatros derives from the word ‘kitharis,’ a name used by Homer for the same instrument, which was later replaced by the word ‘kithara’ (Mass YEAR). It is odd that this antiquated name should be used for such a common instrument, since many of the Greek instruments on the list (most notably the psanterin and the symponia) are attested, at the earliest, five centuries after Homer, by which time kitharis had long been replaced by kithara. The sabbecha appears to be the sambyke, an instrument which the Greeks ascribed to barbaric origin. Scholars of ancient Greek music have concluded that the sambyke is similar to a curved harp still found in Ethiopia and Uganda.7 Because there is no evidence for such an instrument in Babylon [Babylonia?] in either of these periods, most biblical scholars equate the sabbecha with an instrument that is found in these times and at those places — a small, triangular harp. This identification is entirely speculative, though, and is, in my opinion, 6 ‫( ִקיָתרוֹס‬K) ‫( ַקְתרוֹס‬Q) 1x; ‫( ִקיָתֹרס‬K) ‫( ַקְתרוֹס‬Q) 3x; OG, θ΄: κιθαρα(ς). In the former examples the Greek “M” assimilates into the following consonant; Koch (248) also notes that it is curious that the name is “not…the Attic kithara commonly used in the Hellenistic period” (all translations mine). 7 ‫ ַסְבָּכא‬v 5 ‫ ַשְׂבָּכא‬vv 7, 10, 15; OG, θ΄: σαμβύκης. Montagu 2002: 98–99. implausible. Regardless of what it looked like, Greek texts portray the sambyke as an instrument of adulterers and prostitutes, which makes it seem an inappropriate instrument for a solemn religious ceremony.8 The psanterin is assumed to correspond to the Greek psalterion.9 In Greek texts, the only evidence for the instrument outside Dan 3, psalterion does not designate a specific instrument, but refers to the class of plucked chordophones (stringed instruments), of which, at the time, there was an enormous variety. It should also be noted that the word psalterion is only found from the fourth century BCE, arguably a terminus post quem for the passage in Daniel (West 1992: 74). The sumponia has proved by far the most difficult to identify, and it has not even been established conclusively that it is an instrument at all. In Greek texts, again the only external evidence to the term, sumponia seems to refer to a harmony or unison of sounds.10 Its first occurrence that could arguably be interpreted as referring to an instrument is in the second century BCE, and even then it could still be interpreted as music, harmony or even a group of musicians. All of the instruments, then, seem to defy identification to a greater or lesser extent: the qarna could be any number of horns; the mashroqita is entirely unknown, although, if it is the same instrument as the one in the Septuagint, it would seem an odd choice for such a ceremony. As for the names with Greek origins: The qatros is an anachronistic term for a most common 8 E.g., Eupolis, frag. 148.4 in Maas and Snyder 1989: 150. While it might be argued that the barbaric origin of the instrument presumes a different cultural context, its position in the middle of a list of comparatively late Greek instruments, like the psalterion and symphonia, points to a thoroughly Greek musical culture. See also West 1992: 76–77. 9 ‫ְפַּסְנֵתּ ִרין‬: vv 5, 10, 15; ‫ְפַּסְנֵט ִרין‬: v 7; OG, θ΄: ψαλτηριον. 10 ‫סוְּמֹפְּנָיה‬: vv 5, 15; v 7 omits; ‫( ִסיֹפְּנָיה‬K) ‫( סוֹּפְּנָיה‬Q) v 10; OG, θ΄: Συμφωνία. [what does the highlighted part refer to?] Greek instrument; the sabbecha is difficult to identify, and perhaps also inappropriate for a cultic event; the psanterin is not any particular instrument while the sumponia may not be an instrument at all. The most recent archeological and textual evidence makes the orchestra appear more puzzling than ever, as neither the dates, the uses, nor the social settings of these instruments seem to correspond with one another, or with the purported dates of the text’s composition. These instruments do share two things, however: First, despite an abundance of evidence, they are extremely difficult to identify with any precision, and second, put together as an ensemble they are anachronistic in relation to one another and do not belong to one historical era. This conclusion is not helpful from a historical perspective, but it serves as one possible basis for considering these terms as a unified group. On its own, “Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra” is a group of five or six curious instruments; in the context of the whole chapter, the ensemble is one of a number of groups of mostly foreign terms that include also a list of bureaucratic titles (vv 2–3), the names of heroes [protagonists/characters] of the story and a list of the garments they wore (v 21). These lists are a fundamental, if not the fundamental structural feature in vv 1–15, the first half of the chapter. I have included this well-known section to allow the reader to reconsider these lists as they are used in the story: King Nebuchadnezzar made a golden statue whose height was sixty cubits and whose width was six cubits; he set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2 Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent for the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces,11 to assemble and come to the dedication of the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 3 So the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, 11 ‫טֵני ְמִדיָנָתא‬ ֹ ‫ֲאַחְשַׁדּ ְרְפַּנָיּא ִס ְגַנָיּא ֽוַּפֲחָוָתא ֲאַד ְרָגְּזַרָיּא ְגָדְבַרָיּא ְדָּתְבַרָיּא ִתְּפָתֵּיא ְוֹכל ִשְׁל‬ the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces, assembled for the dedication of the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. When they were standing before the statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, 4 the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, you are to fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6 Whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire.” 7 Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 8 Accordingly, at this time certain Chaldeans came forward and denounced the 9 Jews. They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever! 10 You, O king, have made a decree, that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, shall fall down and worship the golden statue, 11 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire. 12 There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These pay no heed to you, O king. They do not serve your gods and they do not worship the golden statue that you have set up.” 13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought in; so they brought those men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods and you do not worship the golden statue that I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble to fall down and worship the statue that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire, and who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan 3:1–15 NRSV). While the lists in Dan 3 are similar to lists commonly employed in ancient Near Eastern literature, here they are used in a noticeably different way (see especially Coxon 1986). In his book on ancient Jewish court legends, for instance, Wills notes that while in long stories repetitions are needed to remind the audience of the plot, in Dan 3 — a story of a mere thirty verses — the constant repetition of lists makes no sense (Wills 1990: PAGES). For example, the repetition in v 3 of the impossibly long list of officials appearing in v 2 — the two lists separated only by the word ‫ֵבּאַדִין‬, ‘so’ — is clearly not necessary to remind us of the officials, and must instead have another purpose. As Avalos puts it: “the immediate and mechanical reproduction of the enumeration of v 2 in v 3 is an effective reflection of the immediate and mechanistic acceptance of the king’s request by the entire pagan bureaucracy” (Avalos 1991: 585). In v 5 “the peoples of all nations and languages” are told that when they “hear the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble,” they are to “fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up…at the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.”12 When the officials accuse Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego of disobeying this command, they do so by repeating the royal decree verbatim. Even more tellingly, the king — the author of the law — also appears to be compelled by it: when he turns to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego he, too, recites it almost verbatim, barely changing “Nebuchadnezzar” to “I.”13 Verbatim repetition is so central to vv 1– 15 that more than three quarters of the verses consist entirely of it, an active illustration of the blind and thoughtless submission of everyone in the kingdom, including the king himself, to the power of the great king.14 The power is entirely of human construction: one human rules over other humans, all of who thoughtlessly obey orders of human creation and repeat laws of human invention, as if these somehow had power in and of themselves. But this power — and the submission to it expressed in the repetitions — could only exist as long as everyone believed they really were powerful; of course, not everyone did. 12 Coxon has pointed out that the phrase “that Nebuchadnezzar the king set up” is found seven times (with slight variations), while the phrase “burning fiery furnace” is repeated eight times, reinforcing the threat that appears so powerful, though the flames prove harmless against the divine protection of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, (Coxon 1986: 109). 13 See Dan 6:14–15, where the king admits to being under the force of his own law. 14 Verse numbers in superscription are not constructed primarily out of repeated material: 1, 2 (= 3); 4; 5 (= 7, 10, 15); 6 (= 11); 8; 9; 12 (= 14); 13. [I do not understand this footnote] Exactly halfway through the story, things take an abrupt turn: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to bow, an act that reveals that the king’s power is an illusion, only real insofar as people are willing to act upon it. The king’s power is shaken, and from this point until the end of the story there are no more repetitions.15 The king, aghast at the challenge to his power “was so filled with rage against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that his face was distorted. He ordered the furnace heated up seven times more than was customary and ordered some of the strongest guards in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to throw them into the furnace of blazing fire” (Dan 3:VERSES). In his madness Nebuchadnezzar orders the fire heated so high it incinerates the guards as they cast Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace. Enraged, the king jumps up from his throne to watch the three burn, only to find four men — the fourth man having “the appearance of a god” — walking in the midst of the fire unbound and unharmed. After Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego emerge from the fire, a group of officials gathers (‫)ִמְתַכְּנִּשׁין‬, as in v 3, but now at their own initiative, without the king’s command. The list of officials who gather is much shorter than that in v 3, and noticeably lacks the concluding phrase all the officials of the provinces (‫טֵני ְמִדיָנָתא‬ ֹ ‫ )ֹכל ִשְׁל‬found in vv 2–3. The officials look at Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and discover that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men (‫)ָלא ְשֵׁלט נוָּרא ְבֶּגְשְׁמהוֹן‬. That even the fire does not have power over them ( ‫ָלא‬ 15 With the notable exception of the foreign names of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, which are repeated nine more times (for a total of 18 times over 13 verses), while their Hebrew names, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, are never mentioned. On this, see also Montgomery 1927: 201; Collins YEAR: 184; Coxon 1986: 104 [references ok?]. The list of officials is referred to again (v 27), but only in a short form. The same occurs with the list of clothing (ibid.) of which only the first word, ‫[ סרבליהון‬no punctuation?], ‘their belts,’ is given. The list of clothing, which occurs in the second half, can be read as part of their assimilation in the empire, wearing the empire’s formal (?) garments. ‫ )ְשֵׁלט‬is the clearest sign that the king — and, by extension, the officials, the so-called ‫טֵני‬ ֹ ‫ִשְׁל‬ ‫ — ְמ ִֽדיָנָתא‬have no real power either. Their power is only as real as the artificially ordained “province” they rule. The wordplay in these penultimate verses of the story nicely delineates the unveiling of all the pompous artifice of the first half of the story. The king acts quickly to avert political catastrophe: knowing he has no power over Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, he makes a regal display of magnanimity, blessing their God, outlawing blasphemy against this God and giving them the right to worship their God (vv 28– 29). In a rhetorical riposte he separates [differentiates between] the power of gods (as in v 29, there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way) and the power of men, promoting Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Letting their God into the pantheon, but not accepting him as his own, Nebuchadnezzar officially concedes only the smallest amount of power, while retaining the appearance of control and avoiding a similar threat in the future. Meanwhile, the audience knows that God is the real power behind the throne and the real actor in the world [metaphor not clear. Isn’t he rather the stage director?], no matter what contrary perceptions may be. The story is an expression for a new generation of the view that God uses foreign powers as his actors in the world, while still retaining the real power. II The story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Dan 3 is strikingly similar to Dan 6, the story of Daniel in the lions’ den: in both stories, officials of Judean descent (‫ ִמְבֵּני ְיהוָּדה‬1:6 [6:1?]) in a foreign court are denounced for disobeying a royal decree demanding idolatrous worship — an offense punishable by death. The officials remain faithful to their God, and are consequently sent to die: Daniel in the lions’ den and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in a furnace. With divine help they survive, precipitating the king to outlaw blasphemy against their God. The two stories are essentially similar, but they are told in fundamentally different ways. The story of Daniel in the lions’ den is a court intrigue with very plausibly human characters and human actions, while the story of three young men in the fire is a magical tale told in a broad, caricatured style.16 The exaggeration in Dan 3 magnifies the foreign power and contrasts it with God to show that while the empire appears omnipotent, the real power belongs to God. More importantly, Dan 3 contrasts human actions and attitudes: the Babylonians’ thoughtless servitude to the visually astonishing statue — an image of purely human power — against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s decisive faith in the invisible, yet real (and really omnipotent) God. Dan 3 tries to teach the listener to differentiate between the material and the real, and its lessons are found not only in the dénouement, but throughout the narrative. Every image of the empire’s power is nothing but an illusion waiting to be dispelled. The first illusion appears in the first verse of the chapter, in the form of Nebuchadnezzar’s colossal gold statue.17 The deception is in the details: according to Koch, the proportions of the statue are “surprising…unheard of elsewhere in the art of the ancient world” (Koch 2005: 274). At 60 cubits by 6 cubits (about 100 feet tall and 10 feet wide, or 30 meters by 3 meters), it is less a colossus than an impossibly enormous gold totem pole (Koch 2005: 274).18 So although the first impression is of an incredibly grand statue, closer consideration reveals its 16 Collins (1993: 181) calls it “hyperbolic style.” 17 It is not without some irony that it begins with this description: in Dan 2 Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a goldheaded statue that is destroyed, which Daniel ominously interprets for the king, saying: “you are the head of gold.” Cf. v 1, ‫ְצֵלם ִֽדּי־ְדַהב‬, ‘a golden image’; with v 19, ‫ְצֵלם ַאְנפּוִֹהי‬, Nebuchadnezzar’s face, which is filled with rage when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to bow to the statue; see Coxon 1986: 112. [Please check highlighted diacritic in this footnote] 18 Montgomery (1927: 196) denotes the proportions of the statue “grotesque.” These proportions would make it almost the same height as the Colossus of Rhodes (perhaps not coincidentally) and near that of the Statue of Liberty, both of which were very wide at the base. proportions to be entirely preposterous (see, e.g., Collins [1984 or 1993?]: 183). The apparent symbol of power represents instead the instability and the vanity of the empire that would build it. Like the golden statue, the lists of foreign bureaucrats, instruments and apparel are also powerful illusions, symbols of the empire’s place as the political and cultural center of the world. All three lists are very similar in content and construction, and this similarity provides the key to understanding them, and dispelling them. The two Aramaic names that begin the list of instruments would have been clearly identifiable as instruments by an Aramaic-speaking audience, even if they could not be distinctly imagined. These two are followed by four foreign names that could have been more difficult to identify. The list ends with the phrase ‫ ְוֹכל ְזֵני ְזָמָרא‬, ‘and all kinds of instruments.’ The list of officials (vv 2–3) similarly opens with three common titles (see Collins YEAR: 182–183), followed by three much more obscure, anachronistic ones, and closes with a similar phrase: ‫ְוֹכל‬ ‫טֵני ְמ ִֽדיָנָתא‬ ֹ ‫ִשְׁל‬, ‘and all the officials of the provinces.’19 The list of the garments worn by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego follows the same pattern, though more briefly, beginning with one plausibly familiar term followed by two unknown ones, and ending with the word ‫וְּלֻבֵשׁיהוֹן‬, ‘and [the rest of] their clothing’ (see Koch 2005: 253). These final phrases appear to serve two functions: to explain in simple terms the nature of the foreign items on the lists (“and all the [other] instruments/officials/clothing”), and to magnify the already extensive enumeration into even grander terms. The lists also share a rhetorical purpose: the foreign content gives the immediate impression of a powerful, universal empire, while the concluding phrase trails off into vague, immeasurable greatness. As the already-numerous officials become innumerable, an 19 “Largely incomprehensible titles,” three of which are hapax legomena, (Koch 2005: 245) [Where does the quote end?]; “Anachronistic…Persian titles” (Collins YEAR: 183). enormous orchestra plays in a ceremony, attended by a mass audience, to which men are wearing what appears to be infinitely involved [what do you mean?] and formal clothing. Montgomery (1927: 201) famously denoted Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra “very cosmopolitan,” a statement Collins (YEAR: 184) repeated approvingly; Coxon (1986: 104) wrote that “the precise cataloguing which characterizes the formal lists…leave [sic? If so add [s] to “leave” to turn into singular] us in no doubt of the writer’s antiquarian interest and inclination to provide an authentic setting to stories set in the Babylonian exile.” The exoticism of these lists is perhaps too easily accepted as confirmation of the historical authenticity of these terms, or at least the author’s attempt to recreate it. Why should these instruments be regarded a single bubble of historical fact in a sea of hyperbole? Most scholars agree that Dan 3 is not an objective historical account: The plain of Dura is apparently not a real place (Collins YEAR: 182); no colossal gold statue of such absurd proportions has ever been found, or is ever mentioned in any other ancient Near Eastern text — a corpus not known for understatement. There is no evidence for a Babylonian edict requiring a religious ceremony involving the whole empire [that requires the presence of all the empire’s officials and subjects] in one place and at one time (E.g., Collins YEAR: 184). Neither is there evidence for Babylonian use of incineration in a furnace as a means of capital punishment (Koch 2005: 269). Given all of this, it would seem natural to subject the instruments to an equal level of scrutiny and suspicion, but, surprisingly, no one has done so. III At a recent conference about music in the ancient Mediterranean, Professor Joachim Braun argued passionately and convincingly that a new historiography of biblical music is needed. While scholars have long since cast doubt on the historicity of large swaths of biblical “history,” no similar skepticism has been aimed at other aspects of the Bible, particularly music and musical instruments appearing in it. One of the reasons that the historicity of biblical music has remained unchallenged, Braun argued, is that scholars find comfort in believing that some things in the Bible are true, must be true — that some things can be dug up and held (and held up as evidence for this truth), and heard, presumably as they once sounded. While this is difficult to confirm, it is true that no commentary I have come across has done more than try to identify these instruments. None has ever suggested that the historicity of these instruments, like that of other objects in the story, might be questioned or questionable, and perhaps entirely beside the point. Until all aspects of the Bible are given equal scrutiny, the integrity of biblical scholarship appears incomplete. [To me, this sentence seems slightly bickery in this context. I would soften it or give it up] It is entirely appropriate to try to identify the instruments mentioned in Dan 3, but, when attempts fail or require so many convolutions as to become unproductive, it is necessary to take a new approach. In this case, a hyperbolic story full of incredible details and in which the only similarities among the instruments (and among the other lists, too) is apparently irreconcilably inconsistent, it is worth asking if they were ever intended to represent a real orchestra. The names of the instruments, like those of the officials and their apparel, appear to have eluded identification for so long because, I suggest, they were intended to be imaginary — part of a carefully crafted illusion. Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra undoubtedly appears “cosmopolitan,” as it was supposed to. Closer inspection, however, shows that it was only a mock regal orchestra, just as the empire was only a mock of real power [charade of power]. Perhaps in the future the terms psanterin or symponia will be explained as historically accurate. For now, though, it appears that Dan 3 asked — and asks — that the audience recognizes the difference between illusion and reality, just as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did. For those Jews living under foreign rule who listened carefully to the story of the three faithful young men, the qarna, mashroqita, qatros, sabbecha, psanterin and symphonia, and all the other instruments made no sound at all [remained silent]. References: Avalos, H. I. 1991 The Comedic Function of the Enumerations of Officials and Instruments in Daniel 3. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53: 580–588. Barker, A. ed. 1984 Greek Musical Writings, vol. 1: The Musician and His Art. Cambridge, England. [NOT REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT] Barry, P. 1905 Daniel 3:5, Sumponya. Journal of Biblical Literature 27(2): 99–127. [NOT REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT] Braun, J. 2002 Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources, trans. D. Stott. Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008 Ancient Israel/Palestine (AIP) and New Archaeo-Musicology: Some Unanswered Questions” (paper presented at conference, Sounds from the Past: Music in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean Worlds, 8 January. Brenner, A. 1994 Who’s Afraid of Feminist Criticism? Who’s Afraid of Biblical Humor? The Case of the Obtuse Foreign Ruler in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 63(1): 38–55. Collins, J. J. 1984 Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Vol. 20, Grand Rapids. 1993 Daniel: A Commentary of the Book of Daniel, ed. F. M. Cross, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis. Coxon, P. 1986 The ‘List’ Genre and Narrative Style in the Court Tales of Daniel. JSOT 35: 95–121. Dyer, C. H. 1990 The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3 Bibliotheca Sacra 147: 426–436. Gammie, J. J. 1976 The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel. Journal of Biblical Literature 95(2): 191–204. Grelot, P. 1979 L’orchestre de Daniel III 5, 7, 10, 15. Vetus Testamentum 29: 23–38. Koch, K. 2005 Daniel, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 22/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Landels, J. G. 1999 Music in Ancient Greece and Rome. London. Maas, M. YEAR Kithara. In: The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 13, ed. [EDITOR], 638. CITY. Maas, M. and McIntosh-Snyder, J. 1989 Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece. New Haven. Mitchell, T. C. 1999 And the Band Played On…But What Did They Play On? Bible Review: 32–39. 1965 The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra. In: Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman, 19–27. London. Montagu, J. 2002. Musical Instruments of the Bible. Lanham, Md. Montgomery, J. A. 1927. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary. New York. Moore, G. F. 1905 Sumfwnia [why not use original Greek spelling of word as it appears in the title?] Not a Bagpipe. Journal of Biblical Literature 24(2): 166–175. Vorreiter, L. 1983 Die schönsten Musikinstrumente des Altertums. Frakfurt am Main. Weisman, Z. 1998 Political Satire in the Bible, Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 32. Atlanta. West, M. L. 1992 Ancient Greek Music. New York. Whedbee, W.J. 1998 The Bible and the Comic Vision. Cambridge, England. Wills, L. M. 1990 Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. Minneapolis. Wulstan, D. 1973 The Sounding of the Shofar. The Galpin Society Journal 26: 29–46. Yamauchi, E. M. 1980 Archaeological Backgrounds of the Exilic and Postexilic Era Part I: The Archaeological Background of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 137(545): 3–13.