Chapter 2, the chapter where MT switches to Aramaic, is a mix of the book of Daniel’s two genres. An apocalyptic dream interpretation is framed by a court contest tale. As we shall see, this chapter’s connections to the rest of the book of Daniel as a whole have prompted a remarkable amount of editorial activity, resulting in a highly layered text.
1 Comparative Reconstruction
OG vv. 18–19 read
Against MT v. 20’s
Against MT v. 23’s
Against MT v. 24’s
Against MT v. 25’s
4QDana 17:12 attests an extra
At the end of the sentence corresponding to MT v. 40, 4QDana 5:9 reads
Also in v. 40, OG has
Hartman and Di Lella note that MT v. 40
OG v. 41 lacks the mention of ‘toes’ (MT:
This leaves us with the following reconstructed archetype:
Reconstructed Archetype of Dan 2
2 Internal Reconstruction
The reconstructed text above contains a great number of literary tensions and inconsistencies:
-
a) ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ is spelled
נבכדנצר without waw in v. 1, but he is referred to asמלכא נבוכדנצר ‘King Nebuchadnezzar’, spelled with waw, in vv. 28, 46. Mostly, he is simply referred to as ‘the king’. -
b) ‘It was disturbed’ is a hitpaʿel
ותתפעם in v. 1 but a niphʿalותפעם in v. 3. -
c) In vv. 1–2, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have had multiple dreams; from v. 3 onwards, there is only mention of one dream.
-
d) In v. 2, the magicians, sorcerers, diviners, and Chaldaeans are summoned. In vv. 4–5,10 only the Chaldaeans are present, but based on the mention of “any magician, sorcerer, or Chaldaean” (v. 10), they may represent this whole group. In vv. 12–14,18,24,48, however, the term ‘the wise men of Babylon’ is used instead. V. 27 combines these phrases into “wise men, sorcerers, magicians, dream interpreters”.
-
e) Vv. 1–4a are in Hebrew, while v. 4b marks a shift to Aramaic.
-
f) Arioch is introduced twice in rapid succession in vv. 14–15, using different terminology. V. 24 may introduce him a third time, although it could also simply be a reminder to the reader of who Arioch is.
-
g) In v. 16, Daniel enters and speaks with the king, but in vv. 24–25, Arioch has to introduce him to the king as if they had not met before.
-
h) Despite the opening scene’s emphasis on the king’s desire to hear his dream together with its meaning, vv. 16,24–25 only mention Daniel’s ability to relate the meaning.
-
i) God is referred to as ‘the Highest God’ in the reconstructed version of vv. 18–19, as ‘the Great God’ in the reconstructed version of v. 20, and as ‘the God of Heaven’ in vv. 37,44.
-
j) V. 18 is syntactically awkward, as it starts with an infinitive that does not depend on anything.
-
k) Daniel’s speech to the king does not start with ‘O king, live forever!’, which only occurs after several sentences (in the reconstruction). Elsewhere in Daniel, this is the opening phrase when addressing the king, as in v. 4b.
-
l) Vv. 29–30 are intrusive, as they interrupt the statement “your dream … is this:” and the narration of the dream. The opening of v. 29,
אנתה מלכא , is awkward, and forms a resumptive repetition together with the same words at the start of v. 31. -
m) The clay is poorly integrated into the lists of the statue’s materials: it is mentioned last in the description of the statue, but appears in second position in the reverse list of v. 35 and in third position in the reverse list of v. 45. The interpretation of the mixture of iron and clay is also inconsistent: three different interpretations are given in vv. 41–43; the style of these interpretations differs from the preceding interpretations, which do not include the phrase “and that you saw” like vv. 41,43 or follow vv.41–43’s dream element—interpretation structure; and three different terms are used: ‘clay’, ‘potter’s clay’, and ‘muddy clay’. In the reconstruction, mention of the toes is restricted to v. 42; this element is not explicitly mentioned in the narration of the dream.
-
n) ‘came loose’ is spelled
התגזרת with he in v. 34, butאתגזרת with aleph in v. 45. In v. 34, it is not stated where the rock originated and in v. 35 it is said to grow into a great mountain; in v. 45, it is stated that the rock came loose from the mountains. -
o) The use of the plural in vv. 36, 47 is unexpected, since Daniel’s friends are not said to be present during his audience with the king.
-
p) V. 44 mentions “those kings” while the interpretation of the dream only mentions kingdoms otherwise. The demonstrative pronoun used here is
אנון , contrasting withאלין used in vv. 40,44 with reference to the materials of the statue in the dream (v. 40) and the kingdoms they represent (v. 44). -
q) Daniel’s reward is split up over vv. 46,48. In v. 48, “and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” seems to have been tacked on as an afterthought.
-
r) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed Nego only appear under those names in the last verse of the chapter. The mention of Daniel’s name Belteshazzar in v. 26 is also isolated.
Refining a suggestion by Hartman and Di Lella,5 Segal has recently argued that vv. 13b,15–24a were secondarily inserted. Vv. 13a, 14, and 24b then form a continuous narrative: “And the law came out and the wise men were to be killed (13a). Then, Daniel returned advice and a report to Arioch, the chief butcher of the king who had gone out to massacre the wise men of Babylon (14). And thus he said to him: ‘Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon! Present me to the king and I will tell the king the meaning.’ (24b)” The secondary nature of the intervening material explains the double introduction of Arioch in vv. 14–15 (f), the restriction of the divine title ‘the Highest God’ to this passage (i), and the absence of Daniel’s friends from the rest of the narrative (which is not strictly a contradiction).
Based on the evidence of OG and 4QDana, we have reconstructed “O king, live forever!” in the archetype of v. 28. Pace Collins,6 this is hard to explain as an assimilation to the other speeches where this phrase occurs, as it occurs at the very beginning of those speeches, not preceded by a few other sentences, as here. It is commonly recognized that vv. 29–30 form an interpolation (l), interrupting the arrouncement that Daniel will reveal the dream and the narration of the dream itself.7 The reconstruction of “O king, live forever!” in this position, however, suggests that Daniel’s speech up to this point, vv. 27a
The interpolated opening of Daniel’s speech in vv. 27a
Similarly, the phrase
The inconsistent ordering of the clay in the lists of the statue’s materials (m) suggests that this element, too, is secondary. It may have been added to explain why the statue broke so easily once it was struck on its feet. This addition, however, created an asymmetry between the statue’s five materials and the four kingdoms they represented. Hence, the various interpretations of the iron mixed with clay given in vv. 41–43, which all show signs of secondariness. These interpretations do not show any particular connections with the interpolations we have identified above, so they cannot be linked to them with complete certainty. In the Conclusion of this work, however, we will see that v. 43 may be connected to the ‘night vision’ layer; hence, it is also indicated with black strikethrough text in the reconstruction below. As the interpretations reflect themes that are again taken up in the Hebrew apocalypses of Dan 8 and 10–12—the division of Alexander’s empire (Dan 2:41–42, 8:8,22, 11:4), interdynastic marriages (Dan 2:43, 11:6,17)—they may have been added by the authors of those chapters (of course, the addition of the feet of iron and clay to the description of the statue may itself have been motivated by the desire to add a prediction about the Hellenistic successor states). With these verses identified as secondary, the reference to ‘those kings’ in v. 44 (p) stands out even more; one of the writers who added an interpretation of the iron mixed with clay may have updated this from a more original ‘that kingdom’, referring back to v. 40. The change to ‘those kings’ brings v. 44 in line with vv. 41–43’s references to multiple dynasties and kingdoms.
Having identified v. 47 as belonging to the secondary ‘hymnic’ layer, we are still faced with the double reward in vv. 46,48 (q). Nebuchadnezzar’s reaction in v. 46 has puzzled commentators, as the king appears to worship Daniel.9 The story’s resolution in v. 48, on the other hand, makes good on the promise of gifts and great honour made in v. 6. While it could also be a later harmonization, I prefer to see this as the more original ending of this story. V. 46, which remains puzzling, shows some ties with the textual layer that introduced Daniel’s friends and the nighttime revelation. The phrase
Among the closing verses, v. 49 has widely been identified as a redactorial addition anticipating Dan 3–4 (r). V. 48b would also appear to be secondary (q), as it anticipates Belteshazzar’s position mentioned in Dan 4:6. There, he is called
This leaves a number of inconsistencies at the beginning of the chapter: the inconsistent form of
Finally, there is the switch from Hebrew to Aramaic (e). On the assumption that Dan 1 was originally composed in Aramaic and later translated to Hebrew, it seems likely that the translator kept using Hebrew for the beginning of Dan 2 until encountering a natural end point in the Chaldaeans’ speech. We may then also reconstruct an Aramaic original for Dan 2:1–4a, with the same caveats provided for Dan 1 in the last chapter. This may provide a more straightforward explanation for the variation in
Reconstructed Text of Dan 2
3 Conclusion
The above reconstruction has resulted in a much slimmer narrative. As was recently emphasized by Segal,18 the older version of this story more closely parallels the Joseph narrative in Gen 41. Nebuchadnezzar has a dream; none of his mantic experts can explain it; Daniel explains the dream’s meaning and is rewarded.
Due to this chapter’s combination of the court tale genre shared with the first half of the book of Daniel and the apocalyptic message shared with its second half, the story was overlaid with many later additions. We have identified a relatively old supplemental layer in the verses describing how Daniel’s friends were involved and how the dream’s meaning was revealed to him by God. Within this interpolation, a second layer was added, including an act of prayer and a hymn of praise. This layer is also connected to several other verses in the chapter. Segal makes a convincing case that this addition (which, in his view, is not distinct from its direct context involving Daniel’s friends) forms a foil to Antiochus IV’s behaviour described in Dan 7.19
Other secondary elements occur in the inclusion of feet of clay mixed with iron in the dream and the various interpretations given to this dream element. Some of these may be connected with Dan 8 and Dan 10–12. Thus, the analysis given above supports Segal’s conclusion that this chapter continued to undergo editing until quite late in the history of the book of Daniel.20
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 37–41. Segal suggests alternative phrasings as well.
The possibility of defective spelling was suggested to me by Alexey Yuditsky.
Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 141.
Collins, Daniel, 151; Newsom, Daniel, 63.
Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 139. Other scholars have made similar suggestions, identifying slightly different stretches of text as belonging to the interpolation.
Collins, Daniel, 150.
Newsom, Daniel, 74 and sources cited there.
Cf. McLay, “Old Greek Translation,” 319–20.
Holm, Courtiers and Kings, 432–36 shows that presenting the successful courtier with sacrifices in this manner is a motif in Egyptian court tales, which could explain its use here.
Cf. Charles, Daniel, viii, c–ci. Charles writes that “[i]n Aramaic down to 300 BC—in fact down to the second century BC, so far as I can discover, the Aramaic order of words in mentioning an Oriental monarch was always ‘Nebuchadnezzar the King’: but never ‘King Nebuchadnezzar’”. This dating is primarily based on Greek texts such as 1–2 Maccabees, but this matches the Maccabean dating of this textual layer we will arrive at in the conclusion of the present work. It conflicts, however, with the use of
Wooden, “Daniel and Manticism,” 140.
See the discussion of memory variants in the Introduction.
Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 114.
Philip R. Davies, “Daniel Chapter Two,” Theological Studies 27 (1976): 392–405; Davies, Daniel, 46–48. See also Kratz, Translatio imperii, 61–62, who suggests that the dream originally referred to the succession of the Neo-Babylonian Empire by the Median and Persian ones. This would parallel the prediction in Dan 5 and correspond with the exilic setting of Dan 1–6 overall.
The similarly difficult expression
E.g. Newsom, Daniel, 62.
Cf. the likely case of mistranslation of
Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 32–54.
Segal, 51–54.
Segal, 54.