Daniel 2:7

Dan 2:7 They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it.

Ver. 7. They answered again and said, Let the king, &c.] Thus these proud boasters vaunt of a false gift, and become like "clouds without rain," as Solomon hath it. {Pro 25:14} See Dan 2:4.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dan 2:7-8. They answered, Let the king tell his servants the dream — But this the king could not do; and yet, unless he could do it, they could not proceed one step toward the gratifying of his desires. The king said, I know of a certainty that ye would gain time — “You only want to protract the time, either that the dream may return, or that my uneasiness may be dissipated, and that, occupied in other affairs, I may think no more of the dream. But I will have from you immediately a positive answer, and a precise explication.” However tyrannical this may appear in the king, his reasoning must be allowed to be very just and right: for if the astrologers could obtain from their gods the knowledge of future events by the explication of a dream, certainly the same gods could have made known to them what the dream was. The original expression means, to buy, or redeem, time, and may be properly applied to men’s using their utmost endeavours to free themselves out of some imminent danger, or difficulty, gaining time being of considerable advantage to that purpose.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[Daniel 2:7] ʿAnu tinyanut (עֲנוּ תִנְיָנוּת - They answered a second time): The Gaon [Saadia Gaon] said: that they did not add anything now beyond their first answer, except that in the first instance [Daniel 2:4] they were speaking directly to the king (l'nochach ha-melekh - לְנֹכַח הַמֶּלֶךְ), in the manner of [Jacob saying to Isaac] “Arise, now, sit” (kum na sh'vah - קוּם נָא שְׁבָה) [Genesis 27:19]. But now [they use] the third-person singular jussive form ["Let the king tell..."] which is not [so directly] addressed [to the person present], like [Esau saying of Isaac] “Let my father arise” (yakum avi - יָקֻם אָבִי) [Genesis 27:31]. And the reason [according to the Gaon] is that they were afraid to speak directly to him [now], and [so] they said [in effect]: "We have no [other] response to give back except what we [already] responded to the king." [The shift to a more indirect grammatical form reflects their fear and inability to offer a different answer.]

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.

Herein appeared their ignorance, that notwithstanding their brags, yet were they not able to tell the dream, except he entered them into the matter, and therefore they would pretend knowledge where was but mere ignorance, and so as deluders of the people, they were worthy to die.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Here the excuse of the Magi is narrated. They state the truth that their art only enabled them to discover the interpretation of a dream; but the king wished to know the dream itself. Whence he appears again to have been seized with prodigious fury and became quite implacable. Kings sometimes grow warm, but are appeased by a single admonition, and hence this sentiment is very true, — anger is assuaged by mild language. But since the fair reply of the Magi did not mitigate the king’s wrath, he was quite hurried away by diabolical vehemence. And all this, as I have said, was governed by God’s secret counsel, that Daniel’s explanation might be more noticed. They next ask the king — to relate his dream, and then they promise as before to interpret it directly. And even this was too great a boast, as we have said, and they ought to have corrected their own conceit and foolish boasting when in such a difficulty. But since they persist in that foolish and fallacious self-conceit, it shews us how they were blinded by the devil, just as those who have become entangled by superstitious deceptions confidently defend their own madness. Such an example we have in the Magi, who always claimed the power of interpreting dreams.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(7) Let the king tell.—The request was reasonable enough, according to the principles of Babylonian sorcery. Nebuchadnezzar’s doubts, however, were awakened, and he was not sure of the veracity of his magicians. He speaks with great common sense (Dan_2:9), “If you can tell me the dream, I shall be sure that your interpretation is correct.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. again] the second time (R.V.).

7–12. The wise men profess their willingness to interpret the king’s dream: but protest that his demand that they should tell him what his dream was is an extravagant one. Nebuchadnezzar, however, adheres to his original demand: and as they are unable to comply with it, commands them to be put to death.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They answered again, and said,.... Or, a "second" (e) time; repeating the same words, having nothing more to say:

let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof; the first part was but right and reasonable, though the latter was mere boasting and arrogancy.

(e) Sept.; "secundo", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; so Ar.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it - Certainly not an unreasonable request, in any circumstances, and especially in theirs. They did not profess, evidently, to be able to recal a dream that was forgotten, but the extent of their profession on this subject appears to have been, that they were able to “explain” what was commonly regarded as a prognostic of a future event.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But this the king could not do; they could not tell the dream, and the king could not, yet both require impossibilities.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. The Septuagint Version here is, "And they answered the second time, saying, O king, tell the dream, and thy servants will judge of these things." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The wise men are unable to satisfy the king"s demands. Ewald comments on the fact that none of them had the inventiveness to make up a dream, and tell the king that had been his dream. He admits himself that there might have been risk of the king discovering the deception, if no flash of reviving memory in his mind answered to their invention. On our hypothesis that the king had not forgotten his dream, but was testing their powers, it was not only in the highest degree hazardous, but it was certain of failure. They must have known the case to be as we imagine it, or, when they were sentenced to death, they would have run the hazard, on the plea, "If we perish, we perish." There was a chance, though a faint one, of success in the attempt to palm off upon the king their own imaginings for his dream; there was a certainty of death if they did nothing. All they can do, however, is simply to repeat what they before said, "Tell us the dream, and we will find the interpretation of it." Nebuchadnezzar has often been denounced as specially foolish and tyrannical on account of this demand which he made of the wise men; but tyrannical though he was, and foolish though he seems at times, looked at from our elevation, this demand of his is not an example either of his folly or his tyranny. These soothsayers enjoyed great honour and great revenues, on the assumption that they possessed certain powers of foreseeing the future. He demands of them, instead of an enigmatical statement of what was coming on the earth, that they tell him what he had dreamed. They professed to be able to discover thefts, and where stolen property was; they professed to point out men who were devising evil against another. If their claims were true, they could surely tell the king his dream. They were thus employed and honoured in order that they should foretell to the king any fortune, good or bad, impending himself or the natron. His dream presumably foretold the future; they affirmed that they knew the future; they surely might tell the king what prophecy was made to him in his dream. Believing in the reality of their powers with all the faith of a fanatic, their refusal could only mean to him treason. They did not tell him his dream, not because they could not, but because they would not, in order that the disaster for such he would be sure the dream portended might not be averted by timely sacrifices. If the elaborate treatises onmagic and divination which have come to us, so far as has been discovered, only in fragments, were complete, it is not impossible that we might be able to tell what interpretation these wise men would have put on the dream, had they been told it. It would be a curious exercise, for certainly Daniel"s interpretation would not be the result. We must return to the versions for a little, in one respect the Septuagint is closer to the Massoretic than Theodotion, by having legontev, the participle, instead of ei+pan. We direct attention to this, with a view to the phenomenon we find in the succeeding clause. The Septuagint rendering is given above. The most noticeable thing which the reader will find about this rendering is the change of person in the last clause. As it stands in the Massoretic text, it is certainly the first person plural Imperfect pael of hwj; but in Syriac the preformative n was the sign of the third person in the imperfect, as well as of the first person plural; hence, if there were a little uncertainty as to the end of the word, it was an easy mistake to one who was reading from a manuscript in Eastern Aramaic, but an impossible one for a scribe translating from a manuscript written in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. It cannot be urged plausibly that the change might simply result from a free translation, for the slavish accuracy of the rest of the verse precludes that escape. As the reading of the Greek is confirmed by the version of Paulus Tel-lensis, the probability is slight of a various reading. This is another evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. It may be observed that while in the Massoretic text the verb "tell" (y"emar) is put in the imperfect, in the Septuagint it is translated as it" it were. imperative. The difference between the third person imperfect and the second person imperative is the presence, in the case of the former, of the preformative y (y), which is absent in the other. That is a thing that might easily happen, that, (yodh) might be dropped or inserted mistakenly; consequently, this affords no evidence that the Septuagint translator took liberties with his text. The question may be put, how tar these soothsayers knew they were impostors. Most likely they were unconscious of anything approaching imposition. We know the elaborate rules by which they determined the exact meaning of every sign and portent. We know how prone men are to supplement such rules by a native faculty for foreseeing what is likely to happen, and how, further, explanations may be devised to save the credit of these canons of interpretation, even when most hopelessly proved to be false by events. Archdeacon Rose appeals to modern spiritualists as examples in point, regarding both the Chaldean soothsayers and modern spiritualists as equally impostors. We feel inclined to regard them as so far alike in this that most of both classes imposed most on themselves. The presence of these false prophets is an evidence of the existence of the true prophets at some time, at all events; there would be no counterfeit coin were there no genuine money.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let the king tell us

The wise men addressed the king in the third person as a sign of respect. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

you see how firm my decision is about this

A decision that will not be changed is spoken of as something firm. AT: "you see that I will not change my decision about this" (See: Metaphor)

there is only one sentence for you

"there is only one punishment for you"

false and deceptive words

These two words mean approximately the same thing and emphasize that these are "lies intended to deceive." (See: Doublet)

translationWords

king

servant

dream

deceive

mind

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

a second time [as translated,] a second time.

we shall tell [as translated,] we shall tell.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.