¹ 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.”

¹ sn This verse marks the beginning of chap. 4 in the Aramaic text of Daniel (see the note on 4:1). The Greek OT (LXX) has the following addition: “In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign he said.” This date would suggest a link to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. In general, the LXX of chapters 4-6 is very different from the MT, so much so that the following notes will call attention only to selected readings. In Daniel 4 the LXX lacks sizable portions of material in the MT (e.g., vv. 3-6, 31-32), includes sizable portions of material not in the MT (e.g., v. 14a, parts of vv. 16, 28), has a different order of some material (e.g., v. 8 after v. 9), and in some instances is vastly different from the MT (e.g., vv. 30, 34). Whether these differences are due to an excessively paraphrastic translation technique adopted for these chapters in the LXX, or are due to differences in the underlying Vorlage of the LXX, is a disputed matter. The latter seems more likely. There is a growing trend in modern scholarship to take the LXX of chapters 4-6 much more seriously than was the case in most earlier text-critical studies that considered this issue.

⁴ tc The MT includes a redundant reference to “your father the king” at the end of v. 11. None of the attempts to explain this phrase as original are very convincing. The present translation deletes the phrase, following Theodotion and the Syriac.

¹ tc In the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate the verb is active, understanding “judgment” to be the object rather than the subject of the verb (i.e., “the Ancient of Days rendered judgment”). This presupposes a different vocalization of the verb ( יְהַב [yÿhav] rather than the MT יְהִב [yÿhiv]).

⁴ sn Although the word times is vocalized in the MT as a plural, it probably should be regarded as a dual. The Masoretes may have been influenced here by the fact that in late Aramaic (and Syriac) the dual forms fall out of use. The meaning would thus be three and a half “times.”

¹ tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (utsÿva’ah nittan) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (vÿtsava’ tinnaten). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

³ tc The present translation follows the MT in reading a Hophal (i.e., passive). Theodotion, the Syriac, and the Vulgate all presuppose the Hiphil (i.e., active). Even though this is the only occurrence of the Hophal of this verb in the Bible, there is no need to emend the vocalization to the Hiphil.

² tn In the Hebrew text the accusative direct object pronoun אֹתָם (’otam, “them”) is omitted/elided for balanced poetic parallelism. The LXX supplies αὐτους (autous, “them”); but it is not necessary to emend the MT because this is a poetic literary convention rather than a textual problem.

³ tc The MT reads יְהוָה (yÿhvah, “the Lord”); however, many Hebrew mss read כִּי אָנִי (ki ’ani, “that it is I”), as also reflected in the Latin Vulgate (cf. CEV “know who I am”).

² tc The MT preserves the awkward 1st person common plural suffix reading מַלְכֵּנוּ (malakenu, “our king”). The BHS editors suggest reading the 3rd person masculine plural suffix מַלְכָּם (malkam, “their king”; so CEV), as reflected in the Aramaic Targum.

⁴ tc The Leningrad Codex and the Allepo Codex both read 1st person common plural עִמָּנוּ (’immanu, “with us”). The LXX and Peshitta both reflect an alternate Hebrew Vorlage of 3rd person masculine singular עִמוֹ (’imo, “with him”). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT in favor of the Greek and Syriac. The internal evidence of 12:4-5 favors the 3rd person masculine singular reading. It is likely that the 1st person common plural ־נוּ reading on עִמָּנוּ arose due to a misunderstanding of the 3rd person masculine singular ־נוּ suffix on יִמְצָאֶנּוּ (yimtsa’ennu, “he found him”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) which was probably misunderstood as the 1st person common plural suffix: “he found us.” Several English versions follow the LXX and Syriac: “there he spoke with him” (RSV, NAB, NEB, NIV, NJPS, TEV). Others follow the MT: “there he spoke with us” (KJV, NASB, CEV). The Hebrew University Old Testament Project, which tends to preserve the MT whenever possible, adopts the MT reading but gives it only a “C” rating. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:262-63.

¹ tc The MT reads “his steps.” If this is correct, then the reference may be to the steps leading up to the heavenly temple or the throne of God (cf. 1 Kgs 10:19-20). The prefixed מ (mem) may be dittographic (note the preceding word ends in mem). The translation assumes an emendation to עֲלִיָּתוֹ (’aliyyato, “his upper rooms”).

³ tc The MT reads a third masculine singular suffix, which could refer back to David. However, it is possible that an original third feminine singular suffix (יה-, yod-hey) has been misread as masculine (יו-, yod-vav). In later Hebrew script a ה (he) resembles a יו- (yod-vav) combination.

⁵ tc In the MT the verb is feminine plural, but the antecedent is unclear. The Hebrew phrase תִּשְׁלַחְנָה (tishlakhnah) here should probably be emended to read תִּשְׁלַח יָד (tishlakh yad), although yad (“hand”) is not absolutely essential to this idiom.

⁴ tc The present translation follows the reading מוֹרִשֵׁיהֶם (morishehem; literally, “those dispossessing them”; cf. NAB, NRSV, CEV) rather than מוֹרָשֵׁיהֶם (morashehem, “their possessions”) of the MT (cf. LXX, Syriac, and Vg, followed by KJV, ASV, NASB).

¹ tc The present translation follows the reading מוּשָׁעִים (musha’im, “those who have been delivered”; cf. NRSV, CEV) rather than מוֹשִׁעִים (moshi’im,“deliverers”; cf. NASB, NIV, NLT) of the MT (cf. LXX, Aquila, Theodotion, and Syriac).

² tc The MT reads בְּקוֹל תּוֹדָה (bÿqol todah, “with a voice of thanksgiving”). Some mss of Tg. Jonah read “with the sound of hymns of thanksgiving” here in 2:9 – the longer reading probably reflects an editorial gloss, explaining תּוֹדָה (“thanksgiving”) as “hymns of thanksgiving.”

² tc The MT has אָמוּר (’amur), an otherwise unattested passive participle, which is better emended to אָמוֹר (’amor), an infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb (see BDB 55 s.v. אָמַר).

⁶ tc The MT reads בְּלִיַּעַל (bÿliyya’al, “the wicked one”; so ASV, NASB). The LXX reading εἰς παλαίωσιν (ei" palaiwsin, “to old age”) mistakenly derived בְּלִיַּעַל from בָּלָה (balah, “to become worn”). There are several places in the book of Nahum where the LXX produced poor translations.

¹ tc The MT reads מְאָדָּם (mÿ’adam, “reddened”) from אָדֹם (’adom, “red”). The LXX confused the roots אָדָם (“man”) and אָדֹם (“red”): ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (ex anqrwpwn, “from among men”) which reflects מֵאָדָם (me’adam, “from man”) from אָדָם.