Daniel 1:2

1:2 Now the Lord ¹  delivered ²  King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, ³  along with some of the vessels ⁴  of the temple of God. ⁵  He brought them to the land of Babylonia ⁶  to the temple of his god ⁷  and put ⁸  the vessels in the treasury of his god.

Daniel 4:35

4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. ⁹ 

He does as he wishes with the army of heaven

and with those who inhabit the earth.

No one slaps ¹⁰  his hand

and says to him, ‘What have you done?’

Daniel 8:25

8:25 By his treachery ¹¹  he will succeed through deceit. ¹²  He will have an arrogant attitude, ¹³  and he will destroy many who are unaware of his schemes. ¹⁴  He will rise up against the Prince of princes, yet he will be broken apart – but not by human agency. ¹⁵ 

Daniel 11:2

11:2 Now I will tell you the truth.

The Angel Gives a Message to Daniel

“Three ¹⁶  more kings will arise for Persia. Then a fourth ¹⁷  king will be unusually rich, ¹⁸  more so than all who preceded him. When he has amassed power through his riches, he will stir up everyone against ¹⁹  the kingdom of Greece.

[1:2]  ¹ tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).

[1:2]  ² tn Heb “gave.”

[1:2]  ³ tn Heb “hand,” which is often used idiomatically for one’s power and authority. See BDB 390 s.v. יָד 2.

[1:2]  ⁴ tn Or “utensils”; or “articles.”

[1:2]  ⁵ tn Heb “house of God.”

[1:2]  ⁶ sn The land of Babylonia (Heb “the land of Shinar”) is another name for Sumer and Akkad, where Babylon was located (cf. Gen 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Isa 11:11; Zech 5:11).

[1:2]  ⁷ tn Or “gods” (NCV, NRSV, TEV; also later in this verse). The Hebrew term can be used as a numerical plural for many gods or as a plural of majesty for one particular god. Since Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist, it is not clear if the reference here is to many gods or one particular deity. The plural of majesty, while normally used for Israel’s God, is occasionally used of foreign gods (cf. BDB 43 s.v. אֱלֹהִים 1, 2). See Judg 11:24 (of the Moabite god Chemosh); 1 Sam 5:7 (of the Philistine god Dagon); 1 Kgs 11:33 (of the Canaanite goddess Astarte, the Moabite god Chemosh, and the Ammonite god Milcom); 2 Kgs 19:37 (of the Assyrian god Nisroch). Since gods normally had their own individual temples, Dan 1:2 probably refers to a particular deity, perhaps Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon, or Marduk’s son Nabu, after whom Nebuchadnezzar was named. The name Nebuchadnezzar means “Nabu has protected the son who will inherit” (HALOT 660 s.v. נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר). For a discussion of how temples functioned in Babylonian religion see H. Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 77-81.

[1:2]  ⁸ tn Heb “brought.” Though the Hebrew verb “brought” is repeated in this verse, the translation uses “brought…put” for stylistic variation.

[4:35]  ⁹ tc The present translation reads כְּלָא (kÿla’), with many medieval Hebrew MSS, rather than כְּלָה (kÿlah) of BHS.

[4:35]  ¹⁰ tn Aram “strikes against.”

[8:25]  ¹⁷ tn The Hebrew term has a primary meaning of “skill, insight,” but here it has the connotation “cunning, treachery.” See BDB 968 s.v. שֵׂכֶל, שֶׂכֶל.

[8:25]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “he will cause deceit to succeed by his hand.”

[8:25]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “in his heart he will act arrogantly.”

[8:25]  ²⁰ tn Heb “in peace.” The Hebrew word used here is difficult. It may refer to the security felt by those who did not realize the danger of imminent attack, or it may refer to the condition of being unaware of the impending danger. The latter idea is reflected in the present translation. See further, BDB 1017 s.v. שַׁלְוָה.

[8:25]  ²¹ tn Heb “with nothingness of hand.”

[11:2]  ²⁵ 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]  ²⁶ 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]  ²⁷ tn Heb “rich with great riches.”

[11:2]  ²⁸ 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.