Footnotes

1. Daniel 1:1 sn The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be ca. 605 b.c. At this time Daniel would have been a teenager. The reference to Jehoiakim’s third year poses a serious crux interpretum, since elsewhere these events are linked to his fourth year (Jer 25:1; cf. 2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:5-8). Apparently Daniel is following an accession year chronology, whereby the first partial year of a king’s reign was reckoned as the accession year rather than as the first year of his reign. Jeremiah, on the other hand, is following a nonaccession year chronology, whereby the accession year is reckoned as the first year of the king’s reign. In that case, the conflict is only superficial. Most modern scholars, however, have concluded that Daniel is historically inaccurate here.
2. Daniel 1:1 sn King Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from ca. 605-562 b.c.
3. Daniel 1:1 sn This attack culminated in the first of three major deportations of Jews to Babylon. The second one occurred in 597 b.c. and included among many other Jewish captives the prophet Ezekiel. The third deportation occurred in 586 b.c., at which time the temple and the city of Jerusalem were thoroughly destroyed.
4. Daniel 1:2 tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here is אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay).
5. Daniel 1:2 tn Heb “gave.”
6. Daniel 1:2 tn Heb “hand,” which is often used idiomatically for one’s power and authority. See BDB 390 s.v. יָד 2.
7. Daniel 1:2 tn Or “utensils”; or “articles.”
8. Daniel 1:2 tn Heb “house of God.”
9. Daniel 1:2 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).
10. Daniel 1:2 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); and 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.
11. Daniel 1:2 tn Heb “brought.” Though the Hebrew verb “brought” is repeated in this verse, the translation uses “brought…put” for stylistic variation.
12. Daniel 1:3 tn Or “gave orders to.” Heb “said to.”
13. Daniel 1:3 sn It is possible that the word Ashpenaz is not a proper name at all but a general term for “innkeeper.” See J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia), 127, n. 9. However, the ancient versions understand the term to be a name, and the present translation (along with most English versions) understands the word in this way.
14. Daniel 1:3 sn The word court official (Hebrew saris) need not mean “eunuch” in a technical sense (see Gen 37:36, where the term refers to Potiphar, who had a wife), although in the case of the book of Daniel there was in Jewish literature a common tradition to that effect. On the OT usage of this word see HALOT 769-70 s.v. סָרֹיס.
15. Daniel 1:3 tn Heb “bring.”
16. Daniel 1:3 tn Heb “and from the seed of royalty and from the nobles.”
17. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “good of appearance.”
18. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “knowers of knowledge.”
19. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “understanders of knowledge.”
20. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “who had strength.”
21. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “to stand in the palace of the king” (cf. vv. 5, 19).
22. Daniel 1:4 sn The language of the Chaldeans referred to here is Akkadian, an East Semitic cuneiform language.
23. Daniel 1:4 tn Heb “Chaldeans” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV). This is an ancient name for the Babylonians.
24. Daniel 1:5 tn Heb “a thing of a day in its day.”
25. Daniel 1:5 tn Heb “from the delicacies of the king.”
26. Daniel 1:5 tn Or “educated.” See HALOT 179 s.v. I גדל.
27. Daniel 1:5 tn Heb “stand before the king.”
28. Daniel 1:6 tn Heb “and it happened that.”
29. Daniel 1:6 tn Heb “among them.” The referent (the young men taken captive from Judah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
30. Daniel 1:6 tn Heb “the sons of Judah.”
31. Daniel 1:6 sn The names reflect a Jewish heritage. In Hebrew Daniel means “God is my judge”; Hananiah means “the Lord is gracious”; Mishael means “who is what God is?”; and Azariah means “the Lord has helped.”
32. Daniel 1:7 tc The LXX and Vulgate lack the verb here.
33. Daniel 1:7 sn The meanings of the Babylonian names are more conjectural than is the case with the Hebrew names. The probable etymologies are as follows: Belteshazzar means “protect his life,” although the MT vocalization may suggest “Belti, protect the king” (cf. Dan 4:8); Shadrach perhaps means “command of Aku”; Meshach is of uncertain meaning; and Abednego means “servant of Nego.” Assigning Babylonian names to the Hebrew youths may have been an attempt to erase from their memory their Israelite heritage.
34. Daniel 1:8 tn Heb “placed on his heart.”
35. Daniel 1:8 tn Or “would not make himself ceremonially unclean”; TEV “become ritually unclean.”sn Various reasons have been suggested as to why such food would defile Daniel. Perhaps it had to do with violations of Mosaic law with regard to unclean foods, or perhaps it was food that had been offered to idols. Daniel’s practice in this regard is strikingly different from that of Esther, who was able successfully to conceal her Jewish identity.
36. Daniel 1:8 tn Heb “with the delicacies of the king and with the wine of his drinking.”
37. Daniel 1:9 tn Heb “Then God granted Daniel loyal love and compassion before the overseer of the court officials.” The expression “loyal love and compassion” is a hendiadys; the two words combine to express one idea.
38. Daniel 1:10 tn Heb “The overseer of the court officials.” The subject has been specified in the translation for the sake of clarity.
39. Daniel 1:10 tn Heb “assigned” (see v. 5).
40. Daniel 1:10 tn Heb “Why should he see your faces thin from the young men who are according to your age?” The term translated “thin” occurs only here and in Gen 40:6, where it appears to refer to a dejected facial expression. The word is related to an Arabic root meaning “be weak.” See HALOT 277 s.v. II זעף.
41. Daniel 1:10 tn The words “if that happened” are not in the Hebrew text but have been added in the translation for clarity.
42. Daniel 1:10 tn Heb “my head.” Presumably this is an implicit reference to capital punishment (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT), although this is not entirely clear.
43. Daniel 1:11 sn Having failed to convince the overseer, Daniel sought the favor of the warden whom the overseer had appointed to care for the young men.
44. Daniel 1:13 tn Heb “let our appearance be seen before you.”
45. Daniel 1:13 tn Heb “the appearance of.”
46. Daniel 1:13 tn Heb “delicacies of the king,” as also in v. 15.
47. Daniel 1:13 tn Heb “your servants.”
48. Daniel 1:14 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the warden mentioned in v. 11) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
49. Daniel 1:14 tn Heb “listened to them with regard to this matter.”
50. Daniel 1:14 sn The number ten is sometimes used in the OT as an ideal number of completeness (cf. v. 20; Zech 8:23; Rev 2:10).
51. Daniel 1:15 tn Heb “fat of flesh”; KJV, ASV “fatter in flesh”; NASB, NRSV “fatter” (although this is no longer a sign of health in Western culture).
52. Daniel 1:16 tn Heb “the wine of their drinking.”
53. Daniel 1:16 tn The words “from their diet” are not in the Hebrew text but have been added in the translation for clarity.
54. Daniel 1:18 tn Heb “at the end of the days that the king said to bring them.”
55. Daniel 1:19 tn Heb “from all of them.”
56. Daniel 1:19 tn Heb “stood before the king.”
57. Daniel 1:20 tc The MT lacks the conjunction, reading the first word in the phrase as a construct (“wisdom of insight”). While this reading is not impossible, it seems better to follow Theodotion, the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Sahidic Coptic, all of which have the conjunction.
58. Daniel 1:20 tn Heb “hands.”
59. Daniel 1:21 sn The Persian king Cyrus’ first year in control of Babylon was 539 b.c. Daniel actually lived beyond the first year of Cyrus, as is clear from 10:1. The purpose of the statement in 1:21 is merely to say that Daniel’s life spanned the entire period of the neo-Babylonian empire. His life span also included the early years of the Persian control of Babylon. However, by that time his age was quite advanced; he probably died sometime in the 530’s b.c.
60. Daniel 2:1 tn Heb “Nebuchadnezzar’s.” The possessive pronoun is substituted in the translation for stylistic reasons.
61. 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.
62. Daniel 2:1 tn Heb “his spirit.”
63. 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.
64. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “said.” So also in v. 12.
65. 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.
66. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “to explain to the king his dreams.”
67. Daniel 2:2 tn Heb “stood before the king.”
68. Daniel 2:3 tn Heb “I have dreamed a dream” (so KJV, ASV).
69. Daniel 2:3 tn Heb “my spirit.”
70. 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.
71. Daniel 2:4 tn Or “the.”
72. Daniel 2:5 tn Aram “answered and said,” a common idiom to indicate a reply, but redundant in contemporary English.
73. 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.
74. Daniel 2:5 tn Aram “made limbs” (cf. 3:29).
75. Daniel 2:7 tn Aram “his servants.”
76. Daniel 2:7 tn Or “the.”
77. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “one is your law,” i.e., only one thing is applicable to you.
78. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “a lying and corrupt word.”
79. Daniel 2:9 tn Aram “I will know.”
80. Daniel 2:10 tn Aram “matter, thing.”
81. Daniel 2:11 tn Aram “whose dwelling is not with flesh.”
82. Daniel 2:12 tn Aram “was angry and very furious.” The expression is a hendiadys (two words or phrases expressing a single idea).
83. Daniel 2:13 tn The Aramaic participle is used here to express the imminent future.
84. 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).
85. Daniel 2:14 tn Aram “returned prudence and counsel.” The expression is a hendiadys.
86. 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.
87. Daniel 2:16 tc Theodotion and the Syriac lack the words “went in and.”
88. Daniel 2:18 tn Aram “Daniel.” The proper name is redundant here in English and has not been included in the translation.
89. Daniel 2:19 tn Or “blessed.”
90. Daniel 2:20 tn Aram “Daniel answered and said.”
91. Daniel 2:20 sn As is often the case in the Bible, here the name represents the person.
92. Daniel 2:20 tn Or “blessed.”
93. Daniel 2:21 tn Aram “kings.”
94. Daniel 2:21 tn Aram “the knowers of understanding.”
95. 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.
96. Daniel 2:23 tn Aram “the word of the king.”
97. 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.
98. Daniel 2:24 tc The LXX and Vulgate, along with one medieval Hebrew ms, lack this verb.
99. Daniel 2:24 tn Aram “cause me to enter,” as also in v. 25.
100. Daniel 2:24 tn Aram “the king.”
101. 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.
102. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “a revealer of mysteries.” The phrase serves as a quasi-title for God in Daniel.
103. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “in the latter days.”
104. Daniel 2:28 tn Aram “your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed.”
105. Daniel 2:29 tn Aram “your thoughts upon your bed went up to what will be after this.”
106. Daniel 2:30 tn Aram “not for any wisdom which is in me more than [in] any living man.”
107. 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.
108. Daniel 2:30 tn Aram “heart.”
109. Daniel 2:31 tn Aram “an image.”
110. 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.”
111. Daniel 2:34 tn Aram “until.”
112. Daniel 2:34 tc The LXX, Theodotion, and the Vulgate have “from a mountain,” though this is probably a harmonization with v. 45.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “the sons of man.”
116. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “the beasts of the field.”
117. Daniel 2:38 tn Aram “hand.”
118. 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.
119. Daniel 2:40 tc Theodotion and the Vulgate lack the phrase “and as iron breaks in pieces.”
120. Daniel 2:40 tn The Aramaic text does not have this word, but it has been added in the translation for clarity.
121. Daniel 2:40 tn The words “the others” are supplied from the context.
122. Daniel 2:41 tc The LXX lacks “and toes.”
123. Daniel 2:41 tn Aram “potter’s clay.”
124. Daniel 2:41 tn Aram “clay of clay” (also in v. 43).
125. 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.
126. Daniel 2:43 sn The reference to people being mixed is usually understood to refer to intermarriage.
127. Daniel 2:43 tn Aram “with the seed of men.”
128. 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.
129. Daniel 2:45 tn Aram “after this.”
130. Daniel 2:46 tn Aram “fell on his face.”
131. Daniel 2:49 tn Aram “and Daniel sought from the king and he appointed.”
132. Daniel 2:49 tn Aram “was at the gate of the king.”
133. Daniel 3:1 sn The LXX introduces this chapter with the following chronological note: “in the eighteenth year of.” Such a date would place these events at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. (cf. 2 Kgs 25:8). However, there seems to be no real basis for associating the events of Daniel 3 with this date.
134. Daniel 3:1 sn There is no need to think of Nebuchadnezzar’s image as being solid gold. No doubt the sense is that it was overlaid with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; Jer 10:3-4), with the result that it presented a dazzling self-compliment to the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s achievements.
135. Daniel 3:1 sn According to a number of patristic authors, the image represented a deification of Nebuchadnezzar himself. This is not clear from the biblical text, however.
136. Daniel 3:1 tn Aram “60 cubits.” Assuming a length of 18 inches for the standard cubit, the image would be 90 feet (27.4 m) high.
137. Daniel 3:1 tn Aram “6 cubits.” Assuming a length of 18 inches for the standard cubit, the image would be 9 feet (2.74 m) wide.sn The dimensions of the image (90 feet high and 9 feet wide) imply that it did not possess normal human proportions, unless a base for the image is included in the height dimension. The ancient world knew of other tall statues. For example, the Colossus of Rhodes—the huge statue of Helios which stood (ca. 280-224 b.c.) at the entrance to the harbor at Rhodes and was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world—was said to be 70 cubits (105 ft or 32 m) in height, which would make it even taller than Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
138. Daniel 3:2 sn The specific duties of the seven types of officials listed here (cf. vv. 3, 27) are unclear. The Aramaic words that are used are transliterations of Akkadian or Persian technical terms whose exact meanings are uncertain. The translations given here follow suggestions set forth in BDB.
139. Daniel 3:2 tn Aram “Nebuchadnezzar the king.” The proper name and title have been replaced by the relative pronoun (“he”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.
140. Daniel 3:3 tc The LXX and Theodotion lack the words “that Nebuchadnezzar had erected.”
141. Daniel 3:4 tn According to BDB 1097 s.v. כָּרוֹז the Aramaic word used here is a Greek loanword, but other scholars have argued instead for a Persian derivation (HALOT 1902 s.v. *כָּרוֹז).
142. Daniel 3:4 tn Aram “in strength.”
143. Daniel 3:4 tn Aram “they are saying.”
144. Daniel 3:5 sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [p^esanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumpon^eyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.
145. Daniel 3:5 tn The imperfect Aramaic verbs have here an injunctive nuance.
146. Daniel 3:6 tn Aram “in that hour.”
147. Daniel 3:7 tn Aram “all the peoples.”
148. Daniel 3:7 tc Though not in the Aramaic text of BHS, this word appears in many medieval Hebrew mss, some LXX mss, and the Vulgate (cf. vv. 5, 10, 15).
149. Daniel 3:8 tc This expression is absent in Theodotion.
150. Daniel 3:8 tn Aram “men.”
151. Daniel 3:8 tn Aram “ate the pieces of.” This is a rather vivid idiom for slander.
152. Daniel 3:9 tn Aram “answered and said,” a common Aramaic idiom that occurs repeatedly in this chapter.
153. Daniel 3:9 sn O king, live forever! is a comment of typical court courtesy that is not necessarily indicative of the real sentiments of the speaker. Ancient oriental court protocol could sometimes require a certain amount of hypocrisy.
154. Daniel 3:12 sn Daniel’s absence from this scene has sparked the imagination of commentators, some of whom have suggested that perhaps he was unable to attend the dedication due to sickness or absence prompted by business. Hippolytus supposed that Daniel may have been watching from a distance.
155. Daniel 3:13 tn Aram “in anger and wrath”; NASB “in rage and anger.” The expression is a hendiadys.
156. Daniel 3:13 tn The Aramaic infinitive is active.
157. Daniel 3:13 tn Aram “these men.” The pronoun is used in the translation to avoid undue repetition.
158. Daniel 3:15 tn Aram “hand,” as also in v. 17.
159. Daniel 3:16 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 verse-dividing atnakh from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”
160. Daniel 3:16 tn Aram “to return a word to you.”
161. Daniel 3:17 tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.
162. Daniel 3:17 tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (ʾitay, “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 ʾitay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 41, §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, thus their statement is rhetorically adapted to the perspective of the person they are addressing.
163. Daniel 3:19 tn Aram “the appearance of his face was altered”; cf. NLT “his face became distorted with rage”; NAB “[his] face became livid with utter rage.”
164. Daniel 3:19 tn Aram “he answered and said.”
165. Daniel 3:20 tn This is sometimes taken as a comparative: “[some of the] strongest.”
166. Daniel 3:21 sn There is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the specific nature of these items of clothing.
167. Daniel 3:21 tn Aram “into the midst of the furnace.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.
168. Daniel 3:22 tn Aram “caused to go up.”
169. Daniel 3:22 tn The Aramaic verb is active.
170. Daniel 3:22 tn Aram “the flame of the fire” (so KJV, ASV, NASB); NRSV “the raging flames.”
171. Daniel 3:23 tn Aram “into the midst of the furnace.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.
172. Daniel 3:23 sn The deuterocanonical writings known as The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three present at this point a confession and petition for God’s forgiveness and a celebration of God’s grace for the three Jewish youths in the fiery furnace. Though not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel, these compositions do appear in the ancient Greek versions.
173. Daniel 3:24 tn Aram “we threw…bound.”
174. Daniel 3:24 tn Aram “into the midst of.”
175. Daniel 3:25 sn The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.” Despite the king’s description though, the fourth person probably was an angel who had come to deliver the three men, or was a theophany.
176. Daniel 3:26 tn Aram “answered and said.”
177. Daniel 3:26 tn Aram “from the midst of the fire.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.
178. Daniel 3:27 tn Aram “in their bodies.”
179. Daniel 3:27 tn Aram “the fire did not have power.”
180. Daniel 3:28 tn Aram “answered and said.”
181. Daniel 3:28 sn The king identifies the “son of the gods” (v. 25) as an angel. Comparable Hebrew expressions are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for the members of God’s angelic assembly (see Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 89:6). An angel later comes to rescue Daniel from the lions (Dan 6:22).
182. Daniel 3:28 tn Aram “they changed” or “violated.”
183. Daniel 3:28 tn Aram “so that they might not.”
184. Daniel 3:29 tn Aram “from me is placed an edict.”
185. Daniel 3:29 tn Aram “speaks negligence.”
186. Daniel 3:30 tn Aram “and the king.” The proper name has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.