Daniel 2:5

2:5 The king replied ¹  to the wise men, “My decision is firm. ²  If you do not inform me of both the dream and its interpretation, you will be dismembered ³  and your homes reduced to rubble!

Daniel 2:25

2:25 So Arioch quickly ushered Daniel into the king’s presence, saying to him, “I ⁴  have found a man from the captives of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”

Daniel 2:43

2:43 And ⁵  in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed ⁶  with one another ⁷  without adhering to one another, just as ⁸  iron does not mix with clay.

Daniel 4:8

4:8 Later Daniel entered (whose name is Belteshazzar after the name of my god, ⁹  and in whom there is a spirit of the holy gods). I recounted the dream for him as well,

Daniel 4:26

4:26 They said to leave the taproot of the tree, for your kingdom will be restored to you when you come to understand that heaven ¹⁰  rules.

Daniel 11:14

11:14 “In those times many will oppose ¹¹  the king of the south. ¹²  Those who are violent ¹³  among your own people will rise up in confirmation of ¹⁴  the vision, but they will falter.

Daniel 12:3

12:3 But the wise will shine

like the brightness of the heavenly expanse.

And those bringing many to righteousness

will be like the stars forever and ever.

[2:5]  ¹ tn Aram “answered and said,” a common idiom to indicate a reply, but redundant in contemporary English.

[2:5]  ² tn 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, ASV), suggesting that the king had simply forgotten the dream, is incorrect. The Aramaic word used here (אַזְדָּא, ’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 s.v.) and therefore “publicly known” (cf. NRSV; F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 62-63, §189), or “the matter is irrevocable” (cf. NAB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NLT; HALOT 1808 s.v. אזד; cf. also BDB 1079 s.v.). The present translation reflects this latter option. See further E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 3.

[2:5]  ³ tn Aram “made limbs.” Cf. 3:29.

[2:25]  ⁴ sn 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.

[2:43]  ⁵ tc The present translation reads the conjunction, with most medieval Hebrew MSS, LXX, Vulgate, and the Qere. The Kethib lacks the conjunction.

[2:43]  ⁶ sn The reference to people being mixed is usually understood to refer to intermarriage.

[2:43]  ⁷ tn Aram “with the seed of men.”

[2:43]  ⁸ tc The present translation reads הֵיךְ דִּי (hekh diy) rather than the MT הֵא־כְדִי (he’-khÿdi). It is a case of wrong word division.

[4:8]  ⁹ sn This explanation of the meaning of the name Belteshazzar may be more of a paronomasia than a strict etymology.

[4:26]  ¹⁰ sn The reference to heaven here is a circumlocution for God. There was a tendency in Jewish contexts to avoid direct reference to God. Cf. the expression “kingdom of heaven” in the NT and such statements as “I have sinned against heaven and in your sight” (Luke 15:21).

[11:14]  ¹¹ tn Heb “stand against.”

[11:14]  ¹² sn This was Ptolemy V Epiphanes (ca. 203-181 B.C.).

[11:14]  ¹³ tn Heb “sons of violence.” “Son(s) is sometimes used idiomatically in Hebrew to indicate that someone is characterized by a certain quality. So the expression “sons of violence” means that these individuals will be characterized by violent deeds.

[11:14]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “to cause to stand.”