Notas al pie

1. Daniel 2:1 tn Heb “Nebuchadnezzar’s.” The possessive pronoun is substituted in the translation for stylistic reasons.
2. Daniel 2:1 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.
3. Daniel 2:1 tn Heb “his spirit.”
4. Daniel 2:1 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 (nad^edah, “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.
5. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “said.” So also in v. 12.
6. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “Chaldeans.” The term Chaldeans (Hebrew כַּשְׂדִּים, kasdim) is used in the book of Daniel both in an ethnic sense and, as here, to refer to a caste of Babylonian wise men and astrologers.
7. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “to explain to the king his dreams.”
8. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “stood before the king.”
9. Daniel 2:3 tn Heb “I have dreamed a dream” (so KJV, ASV).
10. Daniel 2:3 tn Heb “my spirit.”
11. Daniel 2:4 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. The change in language likely reflects stages in the transmission history of the book of Daniel or factors in its composition history.
12. Daniel 2:4 tn Or “the.”
13. Daniel 2:5 tn Aram “answered and said,” a common idiom to indicate a reply, but redundant in contemporary English.
14. Daniel 2:5 tn It seems clear from what follows that Nebuchadnezzar clearly recalls the content of the dream, although obviously he does not know what to make of it. By not divulging the dream itself to the would-be interpreters, he intends to find out whether they are simply leading him on. If they can tell him the dream’s content, which he is able to verify, he then can have confidence in their interpretation, which is what eludes him. The translation “the matter is gone from me” (cf. KJV, ASV), suggesting that the king had simply forgotten the dream, is incorrect. The Aramaic word used here (אַזְדָּא, ʾazdaʾ) is probably of Persian origin; it occurs in the OT only here and in v. 8. There are two main possibilities for the meaning of the word: “the matter is promulgated by me” (see KBL 1048 s.v.) and therefore “publicly known” (cf. NRSV; F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 62-63, §189), or “the matter is irrevocable” (cf. NAB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NLT; HALOT 1808 s.v. אזד; cf. also BDB 1079 s.v.). The present translation reflects this latter option. See further E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 3.
15. Daniel 2:5 tn Aram “made limbs” (cf. 3:29).
16. Daniel 2:7 tn Aram “his servants.”
17. Daniel 2:7 tn Or “the.”
18. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “one is your law,” i.e., only one thing is applicable to you.
19. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “a lying and corrupt word.”
20. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “I will know.”
21. Daniel 2:10 tn Aram “matter, thing.”
22. Daniel 2:11 tn Aram “whose dwelling is not with flesh.”
23. Daniel 2:12 tn Aram “was angry and very furious.” The expression is a hendiadys (two words or phrases expressing a single idea).
24. Daniel 2:13 tn The Aramaic participle is used here to express the imminent future.
25. Daniel 2:13 tn The impersonal active plural (“they sought”) of the Aramaic verb could also be translated as an English passive: “Daniel and his friends were sought” (cf. NAB).
26. Daniel 2:14 tn Aram “returned prudence and counsel.” The expression is a hendiadys.
27. Daniel 2:15 tn The Aramaic word מְהַחְצְפָה (m^ehakhts^efah) may refer to the severity of the king’s decree (i.e., “harsh”; so HALOT 1879 s.v. חצף; BDB 1093 s.v. חֲצַף), although it would seem that in a delicate situation such as this Daniel would avoid this kind of criticism of the king’s actions. The translation above understands the word to refer to the immediacy, not harshness, of the decree. See further, F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 50, §116; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 67.
28. Daniel 2:16 tc Theodotion and the Syriac lack the words “went in and.”
29. Daniel 2:18 tn Aram “Daniel.” The proper name is redundant here in English and has not been included in the translation.
30. Daniel 2:19 tn Or “blessed.”
31. Daniel 2:20 tn Aram “Daniel answered and said.”
32. Daniel 2:20 sn As is often the case in the Bible, here the name represents the person.
33. Daniel 2:20 tn Or “blessed.”
34. Daniel 2:21 tn Aram “kings.”
35. Daniel 2:21 tn Aram “the knowers of understanding.”
36. Daniel 2:23 tn Various explanations have been offered for the plurals we and us. They could be editorial plurals, or refer to Daniel and his three friends who were also praying about the matter.
37. Daniel 2:23 tn Aram “the word of the king.”
38. Daniel 2:24 tc The MT has עַל עַל (ʿal ʿal, “he entered upon”). Several medieval Hebrew mss lack the verb, although this may be due to haplography.
39. Daniel 2:24 tc The LXX and Vulgate, along with one medieval Hebrew ms, lack this verb.
40. Daniel 2:24 tn Aram “cause me to enter,” as also in v. 25.
41. Daniel 2:24 tn Aram “the king.”
42. Daniel 2:25 sn Arioch’s claim is self-serving and exaggerated. It is Daniel who came to him, and not the other way around. By claiming to have found one capable of solving the king’s dilemma, Arioch probably hoped to ingratiate himself to the king.
43. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “a revealer of mysteries.” The phrase serves as a quasi-title for God in Daniel.
44. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “in the latter days.”
45. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed.”
46. Daniel 2:29 tn Aram “your thoughts upon your bed went up to what will be after this.”
47. Daniel 2:30 tn Aram “not for any wisdom which is in me more than [in] any living man.”
48. Daniel 2:30 tn Aram “they might cause the king to know.” The impersonal plural is used here to refer to the role of God’s spirit in revealing the dream and its interpretation to the king. As J. A. Montgomery says, “it appropriately here veils the mysterious agency” (Daniel [ICC], 164-65). Subsequent narratives show both God and angels involved with Nebuchadnezzar, so “they” can be appropriate.
49. Daniel 2:30 tn Aram “heart.”
50. Daniel 2:31 tn Aram “an image.”
51. Daniel 2:33 sn Clay refers to baked clay, which despite being hard was also fragile. Compare the reference in v. 41 to “wet clay.”
52. Daniel 2:34 tn Aram “until.”
53. Daniel 2:34 tc The LXX, Theodotion, and the Vulgate have “from a mountain,” though this is probably a harmonization with v. 45.
54. Daniel 2:35 tn Aram “as one.” For the meaning “without distinction” see the following: F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 36, §64, and p. 93; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 60.
55. Daniel 2:36 tn Various suggestions have been made concerning the plural “we.” It could be an editorial plural translatable as “I.” However, Daniel has portrayed himself as an agent of God, who revealed the matter (vv. 28, 30), so we can express that reality.
56. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “the sons of man.”
57. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “the beasts of the field.”
58. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “hand.”
59. Daniel 2:39 sn The identity of the first kingdom is clearly Babylon. The identification of the following three kingdoms is disputed. The common view is that they represent Media, Persia, and Greece. Most conservative scholars identify them as Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
60. Daniel 2:40 tc Theodotion and the Vulgate lack the phrase “and as iron breaks in pieces.”
61. Daniel 2:40 tn The Aramaic text does not have this word, but it has been added in the translation for clarity.
62. Daniel 2:40 tn The words “the others” are supplied from the context.
63. Daniel 2:41 tc The LXX lacks “and toes.”
64. Daniel 2:41 tn Aram “potter’s clay.”
65. Daniel 2:41 tn Aram “clay of clay” (also in v. 43).
66. Daniel 2:43 tc The present translation reads the conjunction, with most medieval Hebrew mss, LXX, Vulgate, and the Qere. The Kethib lacks the conjunction.
67. Daniel 2:43 sn The reference to people being mixed is usually understood to refer to intermarriage.
68. Daniel 2:43 tn Aram “with the seed of men.”
69. Daniel 2:43 tc The present translation reads הֵיךְ דִּי (hekh di) rather than the MT הֵא־כְדִי (heʾ kh^edi, “even as which”). It is a case of wrong word division.
70. Daniel 2:45 tn Aram “after this.”
71. Daniel 2:46 tn Aram “fell on his face.”
72. Daniel 2:49 tn Aram “and Daniel sought from the king and he appointed.”
73. Daniel 2:49 tn Aram “was at the gate of the king.”