14 Nebuchadnezzar answered them, Is it on purpose, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don't serve my god, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true - Margin, "of purpose;" that is, have you done this intentionally? Wintle renders this, "Is it insultingly?" Jacchiades says that the word is used to denote admiration or wonder, as if the king could not believe that it was possible that they could disregard so plain a command, when disobedience was accompanied with such a threat. De Dieu renders it, "Is it a joke?" That is, can you possibly be serious or in earnest that you disobey so positive a command? Aben Ezra, Theodotion, and Sandias render it as it is in margin, "Have you done this of set purpose and design?" as if the king had regarded it as possible that there had been a misunderstanding, and as if he was not unwilling to find that they could make an apology for their conduct. The Chaldee word (צדא tsedâ') occurs nowhere else. It is rendered by Gesenius, "purpose, design." That is, "Is it on purpose?" The corresponding Hebrew word (צדה tsâdâh) means, "to lie in wait, to waylay," Exodus 21:13; 1-Samuel 24:11, (12). Compare Numbers 35:20, Numbers 35:22. The true meaning seems to be, "Is it your "determined purpose" not to worship my gods? Have you deliberately made up your minds to this, and do you mean to abide by this resolution?" That this is the meaning is apparent from the fact that he immediately proposes to try them on the point, giving them still an opportunity to comply with his command to worship the image if they would, or to show whether they were finally resolved not to do it.
Do not ye serve my gods? - It was one of the charges against them that they did not do it, Daniel 3:12.
Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, is it true,.... What I have heard of you, what you are charged with and accused of; surely it cannot be; so Aben Ezra and Saadiah interpret the word as we do, and all the Oriental versions: it is only used in this place: it is expressed by way of admiration, as Jacchiades observes; it being incredible to the king, what he could never believe, unless it appeared plain in his own eyes. Some (o) render it, is it a "desolation?" so Jarchi; is my decree such? or should you not obey it? was this suffered, nothing but disorder and desolation would follow in the kingdom: or, "is it of purpose?" as others (p); have you done this willingly and knowingly, or through imprudence and inadvertency? if the latter, it is pardonable; if not, it cannot be borne with. De Dieu, from the Syriac use of the word, renders it, "is it a joke?" are you serious, and in good earnest, or in joke, "that ye worship not my gods? or do you mock me and them?"
O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; on whom I have conferred so many favours, raised from a low to a high estate, and yet used by you in this manner:
do ye not serve my gods; one would think he had no need to have asked this question; since he must needs know, that, by their nation and religion, they served only one God, and could serve no other; and that by their daily practice they never did, in which they were indulged:
nor worship the golden image that I have set up? it is for the sake of this the question is put; this was the thing his heart was set upon; and such was his pride, that he could not bear any control in it.
(o) "nunquid desolatio?" Montanus. So Jacchiades, and some in Ben Melech. (p) "An certo consilio?" Junius & Tremellius; "sive ex proposito?" Piscator; so Rabbenu Hai in Ben Melech; "an de industria?" Cocceius; "num revera, vel studiose?" Michaelis.
Is it true--rather, as the Margin [THEODOTION], "Is it purposely that?" &c. Compare the Hebrew, Numbers 35:20, Numbers 35:22. Notwithstanding his "fury," his past favor for them disposes him to give them the opportunity of excusing themselves on the ground that their disobedience had not been intentional; so he gives them another trial to see whether they would still worship the image.
The trial of the accused.
The question הצדא the old translators incorrectly explain by Is it true? In the justice of the accusation Nebuchadnezzar had no doubt whatever, and צדא has not this meaning. Also the meaning, scorn, which אּצדי in Aram. has, and L. de Dieu, Hv., and Kran. make use of, does not appear to be quite consistent, since Nebuchadnezzar, if he had seen in the refusal to do homage to the image a despising of his gods, then certainly he would not have publicly repeated his command, and afforded to the accused the possibility of escaping the threatened punishment, as he did (Daniel 3:15). We therefore agree with Hitz. and Klief., who interpret it, after the Hebr. צדיּה, Numbers 35:20., of malicious resolution, not merely intention, according to Gesen., Winer, and others. For all the three could not unintentionally or accidentally have made themselves guilty of transgression. The form הצדא we regard as a noun form with הinterrog. prefixed in adverbial cases, and not an Aphel formation: Scorning, Shadrach, etc., do ye not serve? (Kran.) The affirmative explanation of the verse, according to which the king would suppose the motive of the transgression as decided, does not agree with the alternative which (Daniel 3:15) he places before the accused. But if הצדא is regarded as a question, there is no need for our supplying the conjunction דּי before the following verb, but we may unite the חצדא in one sentence with the following verb: "are ye of design not obeying?" Nebuchadnezzar speaks of his god in contrast to the God of the Jews.
*More commentary available at chapter level.