Dan 2:1 | KD | STEP | The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the inability of the Chaldean wise men to interpret it. - By the ו copulative standing at the commencement of this chapter the following narrative is connected with c. Dan 1:21. “We shall now discover what the youthful Daniel became, and what he continued to be to the end of the exile” (Klief.). The plur. חלמות (dreams, and ), the singular of which occurs in , is not the plur. of definite universality (Häv., Maur., Klief.), but of intensive fulness, implying that the dream in its parts contained a plurality of subjects. M('p@ft;hi (from פּעם, to thrust, to stroke, as פּעם, an anvil, teaches, to be tossed hither and thither ) marks great internal disquietude. In and in , as in , it is in the Niphal form, but in it is in Hithp., on which Kran. finely remarks: “The Hithpael heightens the conception of internal unquiet lying in the Niphal to the idea that it makes itself outwardly manifest.” His sleep was gone. This is evidenced without doubt by the last clause of , עליו נהיתה. These interpretations are altogether wrong: - ”His sleep came upon him, i.e., he began again to sleep” (Calvin); or “his sleep was against him,” i.e., was an aversion to him, was troublesome (L. de Dieu); or, as Häv. also interprets it, “his sleep offended him, or was like a burden heavy upon him;” for נהיה does not mean to fall , and thus does not agree with the thought expressed. The Niph. נהיה means to have become, been, happened . The meaning has already been rightly expressed by Theodoret in the words ἐγένετο ἀπ ̓αὐτου, and in the Vulgate by the words “ fugit ab illo ;” and Berth., Ges., and others have with equal propriety remarked, that נהיתה שׁנתו corresponds in meaning with נדּת שׁנתּהּ, ( ), and שׁנת נדדה, Est 6:1. This sense, to have been , however, does not conduct to the meaning given by Klief.: his sleep had been upon him ; it was therefore no more, it had gone; for “to have been” is not “to be no more,” but “to be finished,” past, gone. This meaning is confirmed by נהייתי, : it was done with me, I was gone . The עליו stands not for the dative, but retains the meaning, over, upon, expressing the influence on the mind, as e.g., , Hos 11:8, ; , etc., which in German we express by the word bei or für . The reason of so great disquietude we may not seek in the circumstance that on awaking he could not remember the dream. This follows neither from , nor is it psychologically probable that so impressive a dream, which on awaking he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. “The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Gen 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith” (Kran.).

‏ Daniel 2:1

Dan 2:1 The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the inability of the Chaldean wise men to interpret it. - By the ו copulative standing at the commencement of this chapter the following narrative is connected with c. Dan 1:21. “We shall now discover what the youthful Daniel became, and what he continued to be to the end of the exile” (Klief.). The plur. חלמות (dreams, Dan 2:1 and Dan 2:2), the singular of which occurs in Dan 2:3, is not the plur. of definite universality (Häv., Maur., Klief.), but of intensive fulness, implying that the dream in its parts contained a plurality of subjects. M('p@ft;hi (from פּעם, to thrust, to stroke, as פּעם, an anvil, teaches, to be tossed hither and thither) marks great internal disquietude. In Dan 2:3 and in Gen 41:8, as in Psa 77:5, it is in the Niphal form, but in Dan 2:1 it is in Hithp., on which Kran. finely remarks: “The Hithpael heightens the conception of internal unquiet lying in the Niphal to the idea that it makes itself outwardly manifest.” His sleep was gone. This is evidenced without doubt by the last clause of Dan 2:1, עליו נהיתה. These interpretations are altogether wrong: - ”His sleep came upon him, i.e., he began again to sleep” (Calvin); or “his sleep was against him,” i.e., was an aversion to him, was troublesome (L. de Dieu); or, as Häv. also interprets it, “his sleep offended him, or was like a burden heavy upon him;” for נהיה does not mean to fall, and thus does not agree with the thought expressed. The Niph. נהיה means to have become, been, happened. The meaning has already been rightly expressed by Theodoret in the words ἐγένετο ἀπ ̓αὐτου, and in the Vulgate by the words “fugit ab illo;” and Berth., Ges., and others have with equal propriety remarked, that נהיתה שׁנתו corresponds in meaning with נדּת שׁנתּהּ, Dan 6:19 (18), and שׁנת נדדה, Est 6:1. This sense, to have been, however, does not conduct to the meaning given by Klief.: his sleep had been upon him; it was therefore no more, it had gone; for “to have been” is not “to be no more,” but “to be finished,” past, gone. This meaning is confirmed by נהייתי, Dan 8:27 : it was done with me, I was gone. The עליו stands not for the dative, but retains the meaning, over, upon, expressing the influence on the mind, as e.g., Jer 8:18, Hos 11:8, Psa 42:6-7, 12; Psa 43:5, etc., which in German we express by the word bei or für.

The reason of so great disquietude we may not seek in the circumstance that on awaking he could not remember the dream. This follows neither from Dan 2:3, nor is it psychologically probable that so impressive a dream, which on awaking he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. “The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Gen 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith” (Kran.).