Daniel 2:1

Nebuchadnezzar Has a Disturbing Dream

2:1 In the second year of his ¹  reign Nebuchadnezzar had many dreams. ²  His mind ³  was disturbed and he suffered from insomnia. ⁴ 

Daniel 3:29

3:29 I hereby decree ⁵  that any people, nation, or language group that blasphemes ⁶  the god of Shadrach, Meshach, or Abednego will be dismembered and his home reduced to rubble! For there exists no other god who can deliver in this way.”

Daniel 5:12

5:12 Thus there was found in this man Daniel, whom the king renamed Belteshazzar, an extraordinary spirit, knowledge, and skill to interpret ⁷  dreams, solve riddles, and decipher knotty problems. ⁸  Now summon ⁹  Daniel, and he will disclose the interpretation.”

Daniel 8:24

8:24 His power will be great, but it will not be by his strength alone. He will cause terrible destruction. ¹⁰  He will be successful in what he undertakes. ¹¹  He will destroy powerful people and the people of the holy ones. ¹² 

Daniel 11:2

11:2 Now I will tell you the truth.

The Angel Gives a Message to Daniel

“Three ¹³  more kings will arise for Persia. Then a fourth ¹⁴  king will be unusually rich, ¹⁵  more so than all who preceded him. When he has amassed power through his riches, he will stir up everyone against ¹⁶  the kingdom of Greece.

[2:1]  ¹ tn Heb “Nebuchadnezzar’s.” The possessive pronoun is substituted in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[2:1]  ² tn 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 400 §124.o). 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, J. A. Montgomery, Daniel (ICC), 142.

[2:1]  ³ tn Heb “his spirit.”

[2:1]  ⁴ tn Heb “his sleep left (?) him.” The use of the verb הָיָה (hayah, “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 נָדְדָה (nadÿdah, “fled”); cf. Dan 6:19. See further, DCH 2:540 s.v. היה I Ni.3; HALOT 244 s.v. היה nif; BDB 227-28 s.v. הָיָה Niph.2.

[3:29]  ⁵ tn Aram “from me is placed an edict.”

[3:29]  ⁶ tn Aram “speaks negligence.”

[5:12]  ⁷ tc The translation reads מִפְשַׁר (mifshar) rather than the MT מְפַשַּׁר (mÿfashar) and later in the verse reads וּמִשְׁרֵא (mishre’) rather than the MT וּמְשָׁרֵא (mÿshare’). 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.

[5:12]  ⁸ tn Aram “to loose knots.”

[5:12]  ⁹ tn Aram “let [Daniel] be summoned.”

[8:24]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “extraordinarily he will destroy.”

[8:24]  ¹¹ tn Heb “he will succeed and act.”

[8:24]  ¹² tn See the corresponding Aramaic expression in 7:27. If the “holy ones” are angels, then this probably refers to the angels as protectors of God’s people. One could translate, “people belonging to (i.e., protected by) the holy ones.” If the “holy ones” are God’s people, then this is an appositional construction, “the people who are the holy ones.” One could translate simply “holy people.” For examples of a plural appositional genitive after “people,” see 11:15, 32. Because either interpretation is possible, the translation has deliberately preserved the ambiguity of the Hebrew grammar here.

[11:2]  ¹³ sn Perhaps these three more kings are Cambyses (ca. 530-522 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (ca. 522 B.C.), and Darius I Hystaspes (ca. 522-486 B.C.).

[11:2]  ¹⁴ sn This fourth king is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 B.C.). The following reference to one of his chiefs apparently has in view Seleucus Nicator.

[11:2]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “rich with great riches.”

[11:2]  ¹⁶ tn The text is difficult. The Hebrew has here אֶת (’et), the marker of a definite direct object. As it stands, this would suggest the meaning that “he will arouse everyone, that is, the kingdom of Greece.” The context, however, seems to suggest the idea that this Persian king will arouse in hostility against Greece the constituent elements of his own empire. This requires supplying the word “against,” which is not actually present in the Hebrew text.