¹sn As is clear from the extra-biblical records, it was actually Nabonidus (ca. 556-539 B.C.) who was king of Babylon at this time. However, Nabonidus spent long periods of time at Teima, and during those times Belshazzar his son was de facto king of Babylon. This arrangement may help to explain why later in this chapter Belshazzar promises that the successful interpreter of the handwriting on the wall will be made third ruler in the kingdom. If Belshazzar was in effect second ruler in the kingdom, this would be the highest honor he could afford.
²sn This scene of a Babylonian banquet calls to mind a similar grandiose event recorded in Esth 1:3-8. Persian kings were also renowned in the ancient world for their lavish banquets.
³sn The king probably sat at an elevated head table.
⁴tn Aram “the thousand.”
⁵tn Or perhaps, “when he had tasted,” in the sense of officially initiating the commencement of the banquet. The translation above seems preferable, however, given the clear evidence in the context of inebriation.
⁶tn Or “ancestor”; or “predecessor” (also in vv. 11, 13, 18). The Aramaic word translated “father” can on occasion denote these other relationships.
⁷tn Or “taken.”
⁸map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.
⁹sn Making use of sacred temple vessels for an occasion of reveling and drunkenness such as this would have been a religious affront of shocking proportions to the Jewish captives.
¹⁰tc Theodotion has the passive enechthesan (“were brought”).
¹¹tc The present translation reads wekaspa’ (“and the silver”) with Theodotion and the Vg. Cf. v. 2. The form was probably accidentally dropped from the Aramaic text by homoioteleuton.
¹²tn Aram “the temple of the house of God.” The phrase seems rather awkward. The Vg lacks “of the house of God,” while Theodotion and the Syriac lack “the house.”
¹³tn Aram “came forth.”
¹⁴sn The mention of the lampstand in this context is of interest because it suggests that the writing was in clear view.
¹⁵tn While Aramaic pas can mean the palm of the hand, here it seems to be the back of the hand that is intended.
¹⁶tn Aram “[the king’s] brightness changed for him.”
¹⁷tn Aram “his thoughts were alarming him.”
¹⁸tn Aram “his loins went slack.”
¹⁹tn Aram “in strength.”
²⁰tn Aram “cause to enter.”
²¹tn Aram “answered and said.”
²²sn Purple was a color associated with royalty in the ancient world.
²³sn The reference to a golden collar here is probably to something more substantial than merely a gold chain or necklace.
²⁴tc Read pisreh with the Qere rather than pisra’ of the Kethib.
²⁵tn Aram “his visage altered upon him.” So also in v. 10.
²⁶tn Aram “words of.”
²⁷tn Aram “the queen.” In the following discourse this woman is able to recall things about Daniel that go back to the days of Nebuchadnezzar, things that Belshazzar does not seem to recollect. It is likely that she was the wife not of Belshazzar but of Nabonidus or perhaps even Nebuchadnezzar. In that case, “queen” here means “queen mother.”
²⁸tn Aram “The queen.” The translation has used the pronoun “she” instead because repetition of the noun here would be redundant in terms of English style.
²⁹tn Aram “[there were] discovered to be in him.”
³⁰tn Aram “wisdom like the wisdom.” This would be redundant in terms of English style.
³¹tc Theodotion lacks the phrase “and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods.”
³²tc The MT includes a redundant reference to “your father the king” at the end of v. 11. None of the attempts to explain this phrase as original are very convincing. The present translation deletes the phrase, following Theodotion and the Syriac.
³³tc The translation reads mipsar rather than the MT mepassar and later in the verse reads misra’ rather than the MT mesare’. The Masoretes have understood these Aramaic forms to be participles, but they are more likely to be vocalized as infinitives. As such, they have an epexegetical function in the syntax of their clause.
³⁴tn Aram “to loose knots.”
³⁵tn Aram “let [Daniel] be summoned.”
³⁶tn Aram “there has been found in you.”
³⁷tn The Aramaic text does not have “and.” The term “astrologers” is either an appositive for “wise men” (cf. KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV), or the construction is to be understood as asyndetic (so the translation above).
³⁸tn The Aramaic text has also the words “about you.”
³⁹tn Or perhaps “one of three rulers,” in the sense of becoming part of a triumvir. So also v. 29.
⁴⁰tn Or “the.”
⁴¹tn Or “royal greatness and majestic honor,” if the four terms are understood as a double hendiadys.
⁴²tn Aram “were trembling and fearing.” This can be treated as a hendiadys, “were trembling with fear.”
⁴³tn Aram “let live.” This Aramaic form is the aphel participle of hyh (“to live”). Theodotion and the Vg mistakenly take the form to be from mh’ (“to smite”).
⁴⁴tn Aram “heart.”
⁴⁵sn The point of describing Nebuchadnezzar as arrogant is that he had usurped divine prerogatives, and because of his immense arrogance God had dealt decisively with him.
⁴⁶tn Aram “heart.”
⁴⁷tn Aram “his dwelling.”
⁴⁸tn Or “descendant”; or “successor.”
⁴⁹tn Aram “your heart.”
⁵⁰tn Aram “which.”
⁵¹tn Aram “in whose hand [are].”
⁵²tc The Greek version of Theodotion lacks the repetition of mene’ (cf. NAB).
⁵³tc The Aramaic word is plural. Theodotion has the singular, phares (cf. NAB “PERES”).
⁵⁴tn Or “word” or “event.” See HALOT 5:1915.
⁵⁵tn The Aramaic term mene’ is a noun referring to a measure of weight. The linkage here to the verb “to number” (Aram. menah) is a case of paronomasia rather than strict etymology. So also with teqel and parsin. In the latter case there is an obvious wordplay with the name “Persian.”
⁵⁶sn Peres is the singular form of pharsin in v. 25.
⁵⁷tn Aram “Belshazzar spoke.”
⁵⁸tn Aram “king of the Chaldeans.”
⁵⁹sn The year was 539 B.C. At this time Daniel would have been approximately eighty-one years old. The relevant extra-biblical records describing the fall of Babylon include portions of Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus (cited in Josephus), the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Babylonian Chronicle.
⁶⁰sn Beginning with 5:31, the verse numbers through 6:28 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Aramaic text (BHS), with 5:31 ET = 6:1 AT, 6:1 ET = 6:2 AT, 6:2 ET = 6:3 AT, 6:3 ET = 6:4 AT, etc., through 6:28 ET = 6:29 AT. Beginning with 7:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Aramaic text are again the same.