¹tn Heb “Nebuchadnezzar’s.”
²tn Heb “dreamed dreams.” The plural is used here and in v. 2, but the singular in v. 3. The plural “dreams” has been variously explained. Some interpreters take the plural as denoting an indefinite singular (so GKC §124o). But it may be that it is describing a stream of related dreams, or a dream state. In the latter case, one might translate: “Nebuchadnezzar was in a trance.” See further, Montgomery, Daniel (ICC), 142.
³tn Heb “his spirit.”
⁴tn Heb “his sleep left (?) him.” The use of the verb hyh (“to be”) here is unusual. The context suggests a meaning such as “to be finished” or “gone.” Cf. Dan 8:27. Some scholars emend the verb to read nadedah (“fled”); cf. Dan 6:19. See further, DCH 2:540; HALOT 1:244; BDB 227-28.
⁵tn Heb “said.” So also in v. 12.
⁶tn Heb “Chaldeans.” The term Chaldeans (Hebrew kasdim) is used in the Book of Daniel both in an ethnic sense and, as here, to refer to a caste of Babylonian wise men and astrologers.
⁷tn Heb “to explain to the king his dreams.”
⁸tn Heb “stood before the king.”
⁹tn Heb “I have dreamed a dream.”
¹⁰tn Heb “my spirit.”
¹¹sn Contrary to common belief, the point here is not that the wise men (Chaldeans) replied to the king in the Aramaic language, or that this language was uniquely the language of the Chaldeans. It was this view that led in the past to Aramaic being referred to as “Chaldee.” Aramaic was used as a lingua franca during this period; its origins and usage were not restricted to the Babylonians. Rather, this phrase is better understood as an editorial note marking the fact that from 2:4b through 7:28 the language of the book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. In 8:1, and for the remainder of the book, the language returns to Hebrew. Various views have been advanced to account for this change of language, most of which are unconvincing. Most likely the change in language is a reflection of stages in the transmission history of the Book of Daniel.
¹²tn Or “the.”
¹³tn Aram “answered and said,” a common idiom to indicate a reply.
¹⁴tn It seems clear from what follows that Nebuchadnezzar clearly recalls the content of the dream, although obviously he does not know what to make of it. By not divulging the dream itself to the would-be interpreters, he intends to find out whether they are simply leading him on. If they can tell him the dream’s content, which he is able to verify, he then can have confidence in their interpretation, which is what eludes him. The translation “the matter is gone from me” (cf. KJV), suggesting that the king had simply forgotten the dream, is incorrect. The Aramaic word used here (’azda’) is probably of Persian origin; it occurs in the OT only here and in v. 8. There are two main possibilities for the meaning of the word: “the matter is promulgated by me” (see KBL 1048) and therefore “publicly known” (Rosenthal, Grammar, §189), or “the matter is irrevocable” (HALOT 5:1808; cf. also BDB 1079). The translation adopted above reflects this latter option. See further Ernestus Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, 3.
¹⁵tn Aram “made limbs.” Cf. 3:29.
¹⁶tn Aram “his servants.”
¹⁷tn Or “the.”
¹⁸tn Aram “one is your law,” i.e., only one thing is applicable to you.
¹⁹tn Aram “a lying and corrupt word.”
²⁰tn Aram “I will know.”
²¹tn Aram “matter, thing.”
²²tn Aram “whose dwelling is not with flesh.”
²³tn Aram “was angry and very furious.” The expression is a hendiadys (two words or phrases expressing a single idea).
²⁴tn The Aramaic participle is used here to express the imminent future.
²⁵tn The impersonal active plural (“they sought”) of the Aramaic verb often, as here, functions like an English passive.
²⁶tn Aram “returned prudence and counsel.” The expression is a hendiadys.
²⁷tn Aram “of Arioch the king’s deputy.” The proper name is redundant here in English and has not been included in the translation.
²⁸tn The Aramaic word mehahsepah may refer to the severity of the king’s decree (i.e., “harsh”; so HALOT 5:1879; BDB 1093), although it would seem that in a delicate situation such as this Daniel would avoid this kind of criticism of the king’s actions. The translation above understands the word to refer to the immediacy, not harshness, of the decree. See further, Franz Rosenthal, Grammar, §116; Ernestus Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, 67.
²⁹tc Theodotion and the Syriac lack the words “went in and.”
³⁰tn Aram “Daniel.” The proper name is redundant here in English, and has not been included in the translation.
³¹tn Or “blessed.”
³²tn Aram “Daniel answered and said.”
³³sn As is often the case in the Bible, here the name represents the person.
³⁴tn Or “blessed.”
³⁵tn Aram “kings.”
³⁶tn Aram “the knowers of understanding.”
³⁷tn Aram “we.” Various explanations have been offered for the plural, but it is probably best understood as the editorial plural. So also with “me” later in this verse.
³⁸tn Aram “the word of the king.”
³⁹tc The MT has `al `al (“he entered upon”). Several medieval Hebrew MSS lack the verb, although this may be due to haplography.
⁴⁰tc The LXX and Vg, along with one medieval Hebrew MS, lack this verb.
⁴¹tn Aram “cause me to enter.” So also in v. 25.
⁴²tn Aram “the king.”
⁴³sn Arioch’s claim is self-serving and exaggerated. It is Daniel who came to him, and not the other way around. By claiming to have found one capable of solving the king’s dilemma Arioch probably hoped to ingratiate himself to the king.
⁴⁴tn Aram “a revealer of mysteries.” The phrase serves as a quasi-title for God in Daniel.
⁴⁵tn Aram “days.”
⁴⁶tn Aram “your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed.”
⁴⁷tn Aram “your thoughts upon your bed went up to what will be after this.”
⁴⁸tn Aram “not for any wisdom which is in me more than [in] any living man.”
⁴⁹tn Aram “they might cause the king to know.” The impersonal plural is used here to refer to the role of God’s spirit in revealing the dream and its interpretation to the king. As Montgomery says, “it appropriately here veils the mysterious agency.” See Montgomery, Daniel (ICC), 164-65.
⁵⁰tn Aram “heart.”
⁵¹tn Aram “an image.”
⁵²sn Clay refers to baked clay, which though hard was also fragile. Cf. the reference in v. 41 to “wet clay.”
⁵³tn Aram “until.”
⁵⁴tc The LXX, Theodotion, and the Vg have “from a mountain,” though this is probably a harmonization with v. 45.
⁵⁵tn Aram “as one.” For the meaning “without distinction” see the following: Franz Rosenthal, Grammar, §64, 93; Ernestus Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, 60.
⁵⁶tn Various suggestions have been made concerning the plural “we.” It is probably the editorial plural and could be translated here as “I.”
⁵⁷tn Aram “the sons of man.”
⁵⁸tn Aram “the beasts of the field.”
⁵⁹tn Aram “hand.”
⁶⁰sn The identity of the first kingdom is clearly Babylon. The identification of the following three kingdoms is disputed. The common view is that they represent Media, Persia, and Greece. Most conservative scholars identify them as Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
⁶¹tc Theodotion and the Vg lack the phrase “and as iron breaks in pieces.”
⁶²tn The Aramaic text does not have this word, but it has been added in the translation for clarity.
⁶³tn The words “the others” are supplied from the context.
⁶⁴tc The LXX lacks “and toes.”
⁶⁵tn Aram “potter’s clay.”
⁶⁶tn Aram “clay of clay” (also in v. 43).
⁶⁷tc The present translation reads the conjunction, with most medieval Hebrew MSS, LXX, Vg, and the Qere. The Kethib lacks the conjunction.
⁶⁸sn The reference to people being mixed is usually understood to refer to intermarriage.
⁶⁹tn Aram “with the seed of men.”
⁷⁰tc The present translation reads hek di rather than the MT he’ kedi. It is a case of wrong word division.
⁷¹tn Aram “after this.”
⁷²tn Aram “fell on his face.”
⁷³tn Aram “and Daniel sought from the king and he appointed.”
⁷⁴tn Aram “was at the gate of the king.”