Daniel 6:4

6:4 Consequently the supervisors and satraps were trying to find ¹  some pretext against Daniel in connection with administrative matters. ²  But they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, ³  because he was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption. ⁴ 

Daniel 6:1

Daniel is Thrown into a Lions’ Den

6:1 It seemed like a good idea to Darius ⁵  to appoint over the kingdom 120 satraps ⁶  who would be in charge of the entire kingdom.

Daniel 3:16-18

3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, ⁷  “We do not need to give you a reply ⁸  concerning this. 3:17 If ⁹  our God whom we are serving exists, ¹⁰  he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. 3:18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.”

[6:4]  ¹ tn Aram “looking to find.”

[6:4]  ² tn Aram “from the side of the kingdom.”

[6:4]  ³ tn Aram “pretext and corruption.”

[6:4]  ⁴ tn Aram “no negligence or corruption was found in him.” The Greek version of Theodotion lacks the phrase “and no negligence or corruption was found in him.”

[6:1]  ⁵ tn Aram “It was pleasing before Darius.”

[6:1]  ⁶ tn This is a technical term for an official placed in charge of a region of the empire (cf. KJV, NLT “prince[s]”; NCV, TEV “governors”). These satraps were answerable to a supervisor, who in turn answered to Darius.

[3:16]  ⁷ tc In the MT this word is understood to begin the following address (“answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar’”). However, it seems unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s subordinates would address the king in such a familiar way, particularly in light of the danger that they now found themselves in. The present translation implies moving the atnach from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”

[3:16]  ⁸ tn Aram “to return a word to you.”

[3:17]  ⁹ tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.

[3:17]  ¹⁰ tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.