Daniel 2:4

2:4 The wise men replied to the king: [What follows is in Aramaic ¹ ] “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will disclose its ²  interpretation.”

Daniel 2:16

2:16 So Daniel went in and ³  requested the king to grant him time, that he might disclose the interpretation to the king.

Daniel 5:8

5:8 So all the king’s wise men came in, but they were unable to read the writing or to make known its ⁴  interpretation to the king.

Daniel 5:17

Daniel Interprets the Handwriting on the Wall

5:17 But Daniel replied to the king, “Keep your gifts, and give your rewards to someone else! However, I will read the writing for the king and make known its ⁵  interpretation.

Daniel 2:24

2:24 Then Daniel went in to see ⁶  Arioch (whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon). He came ⁷  and said to him, “Don’t destroy the wise men of Babylon! Escort me ⁸  to the king, and I will disclose the interpretation to him!” ⁹ 

Daniel 4:19

Daniel Interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream

4:19 Then Daniel (whose name is also Belteshazzar) was upset for a brief time; ¹⁰  his thoughts were alarming him. The king said, “Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream and its interpretation alarm you.” But Belteshazzar replied, “Sir, ¹¹  if only the dream were for your enemies and its interpretation applied to your adversaries!

[2:4]  ¹ sn Contrary to common belief, the point here is not that the wise men (Chaldeans) replied to the king in the Aramaic language, or that this language was uniquely the language of the Chaldeans. It was this view that led in the past to Aramaic being referred to as “Chaldee.” Aramaic was used as a lingua franca during this period; its origins and usage were not restricted to the Babylonians. Rather, this phrase is better understood as an editorial note (cf. NAB) marking the fact that from 2:4b through 7:28 the language of the book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. In 8:1, and for the remainder of the book, the language returns to Hebrew. Various views have been advanced to account for this change of language, most of which are unconvincing. Most likely the change in language is a reflection of stages in the transmission history of the book of Daniel.

[2:4]  ² tn Or “the.”

[2:16]  ³ tc Theodotion and the Syriac lack the words “went in and.”

[5:8]  ⁵ tc Read וּפִשְׁרֵהּ (ufishreh) with the Qere rather than וּפִשְׁרָא (ufishra’) of the Kethib.

[5:17]  ⁷ tn Or “the.”

[2:24]  ⁹ tc The MT has עַל עַל (’al ’al, “he entered upon”). Several medieval Hebrew MSS lack the verb, although this may be due to haplography.

[2:24]  ¹⁰ tc The LXX and Vulgate, along with one medieval Hebrew MS, lack this verb.

[2:24]  ¹¹ tn Aram “cause me to enter.” So also in v. 25.

[2:24]  ¹² tn Aram “the king.”

[4:19]  ¹¹ tn Aram “about one hour.” The expression refers idiomatically to a brief period of time of undetermined length.

[4:19]  ¹² tn Aram “my lord.”