1sn As is clear from the extra-biblical records, it was actually Nabonidus (ca. 556-539 B.C.) who was king of Babylon at this time. However, Nabonidus spent long periods of time at Teima, and during those times Belshazzar his son was de facto king of Babylon. This arrangement may help to explain why later in this chapter Belshazzar promises that the successful interpreter of the handwriting on the wall will be made third ruler in the kingdom. If Belshazzar was in effect second ruler in the kingdom, this would be the highest honor he could grant.
2sn This scene of a Babylonian banquet calls to mind a similar grandiose event recorded in Esth 1:3-8. Persian kings were also renowned in the ancient Near Eastern world for their lavish banquets.
3sn The king probably sat at an elevated head table.
4tnAram “the thousand.”
5tn Or perhaps, “when he had tasted” (cf. NASB) in the sense of officially initiating the commencement of the banquet. The translation above seems preferable, however, given the clear evidence of inebriation in the context (cf. also CEV “he got drunk and ordered”).
6tn Or “ancestor”; or “predecessor” (also in vv. 11, 13, 18). The Aramaic word translated “father” can on occasion denote these other relationships.
7tn Or “taken.”
8map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.
9sn Making use of sacred temple vessels for an occasion of reveling and drunkenness such as this would have been a religious affront of shocking proportions to the Jewish captives.
10tc The present translation reads וְכַסְפָּא (v˙khaspa’, “and the silver”) with Theodotion and the Vulgate. Cf. v. 2. The form was probably accidentally dropped from the Aramaic text by homoioteleuton.
11tnAram “the temple of the house of God.” The phrase seems rather awkward. The Vulgate lacks “of the house of God,” while Theodotion and the Syriac lack “the house.”
12tnAram “came forth.”
13sn The mention of the lampstand in this context is of interest because it suggests that the writing was in clear view.
14tn While Aramaic פַּס (pas)can mean the palm of the hand, here it seems to be the back of the hand that is intended.
15tnAram “[the king’s] brightness changed for him.”
16tnAram “his thoughts were alarming him.”
17tnAram “his loins went slack.”
18tnAram “in strength.”
19tnAram “cause to enter.”
20tnAram “answered and said.”
21snPurple was a color associated with royalty in the ancient world.
22tn The term translated “golden collar” here probably refers to something more substantial than merely a gold chain (cf. NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT) or necklace (cf. NASB).
23tc Read וּפִשְׁרֵהּ (ufishreh) with the Qere rather than וּפִשְׁרָא (ufishra’) of the Kethib.
24tnAram “his visage altered upon him.” So also in v. 10.
25tnAram “words of the king.”
26tnAram “the queen” (so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). In the following discourse this woman is able to recall things about Daniel that go back to the days of Nebuchadnezzar, things that Belshazzar does not seem to recollect. It is likely that she was the wife not of Belshazzar but of Nabonidus or perhaps even Nebuchadnezzar. In that case, “queen” here means “queen mother” (cf. NCV “the king’s mother”).
27tnAram “The queen.” The translation has used the pronoun “she” instead because repetition of the noun here would be redundant in terms of English style.
28tnAram “[there were] discovered to be in him.”
29tnAram “wisdom like the wisdom.” This would be redundant in terms of English style.
30tc Theodotion lacks the phrase “and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods.”
31tc 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.
32tc The translation reads מִפְשַׁר (mifshar) rather than the MT מְפַשַּׁר (m˙fashar) and later in the verse reads וּמִשְׁרֵא (mishre’) rather than the MT וּמְשָׁרֵא (m˙share’). The Masoretes have understood these Aramaic forms to be participles, but they are more likely to be vocalized as infinitives. As such, they have an epexegetical function in the syntax of their clause.
33tnAram “to loose knots.”
34tnAram “let [Daniel] be summoned.”
35tnAram “there has been found in you.”
36tn The Aramaic text does not have “and.” The term “astrologers” is either an appositive for “wise men” (cf. KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV), or the construction is to be understood as asyndetic (so the translation above).
37tn The Aramaic text has also the words “about you.”
38tn Or perhaps “one of three rulers,” in the sense of becoming part of a triumvir. So also v. 29.
39tn Or “the.”
40tn Or “royal greatness and majestic honor,” if the four terms are understood as a double hendiadys.
41tnAram “were trembling and fearing.” This can be treated as a hendiadys, “were trembling with fear.”
42tnAram “let live.” This Aramaic form is the aphel participle of חַיָה(khayah, “to live”). Theodotion and the Vulgate mistakenly take the form to be from מְחָא (m˙kha’, “to smite”).
43tnAram “heart.”
44sn The point of describing Nebuchadnezzar as arrogant is that he had usurped divine prerogatives, and because of his immense arrogance God had dealt decisively with him.
45tnAram “heart.”
46tnAram “his dwelling.”
47tn Or “descendant”; or “successor.”
48tnAram “your heart.”
49tnAram “which.”
50tnAram “in whose hand [are].”
51tc The Greek version of Theodotion lacks the repetition of מְנֵא (m˙ne’, cf. NAB).
52tc The Aramaic word is plural. Theodotion has the singular (cf. NAB “PERES”).
53tn Or “word” or “event.” See HALOT 1915 s.v. מִלָּה.
54tn The Aramaic term מְנֵא (m˙ne’) is a noun referring to a measure of weight. The linkage here to the verb “to number” (Aram. מְנָה, m˙nah) is a case of paronomasia rather than strict etymology. So also with תְּקֵל (t˙qel) and פַרְסִין (farsin). In the latter case there is an obvious wordplay with the name “Persian.”
55sn Peres (פְּרֵס) is the singular form of פַרְסִין (pharsin) in v. 25.
56tnAram “Belshazzar spoke.”
57tnAram “king of the Chaldeans.”
58sn The year was 539 B.C. At this time Daniel would have been approximately eighty-one years old. The relevant extra-biblical records describing the fall of Babylon include portions of Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus (cited in Josephus), the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Babylonian Chronicle.
59sn Beginning with 5:31, the verse numbers through 6:28 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Aramaic text (BHS), with 5:31 ET = 6:1 AT, 6:1 ET = 6:2 AT, 6:2 ET = 6:3 AT, 6:3 ET = 6:4 AT, etc., through 6:28 ET = 6:29 AT. Beginning with 7:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Aramaic text are again the same.