Daniel narrates and interprets a dream for Nebuchadnezzar in his court (Dan 2:31–45), interlaced with his affirmations, “you saw” (vv.31, 34, 41, 43, 45), and Nebuchadnezzar does
not deny Daniel’s claim that the dream described is what he saw. Instead, Nebuchadnezzar
claims that Daniel has revealed a “secret” or a “mystery” (הֽ ָנ ְד ה ִָּ֥ז ָר אֵ֖ ל ְג ִמ ְל ָת ְל ַּ֔ כ ְי), and that Daniel’s
God is “a Revealer of secrets” (ןיָ֑ ִז ָר ה֣ ל ָג ְו, Dan 2:47), a divine epithet learned from Daniel ( אֵ֧ ל ָג ְו אָ֛ ָי ַּז ָר, v.29). The nature of the secrets revealed concern future events, and Daniel tells
Nebuchadnezzar that God has already made the narrated future known to him before he narrates the dream (אֽ ו ֱה ֶל י ִּ֥ ִד־ה ָמ ךְ ֵ֖ ָע ְדוֹה, Dan 2:29), but Daniel also claims the secret’s revelation
for himself to make the interpretation known to Nebuchadnezzar ( י ִ֤ ִד ֙ת ַּר ְב ִד־ל ַּע ן ַ֗ ה ָל י ִָ֑ל י ֣ ִל ֱג הֵ֖ ָנ ְד אִּ֥ ָז ָר ןוּ ַּ֔ע ְדוֹהְי א֣ ָכ ְל ַּמ ְל ֙א ָר ְשׁ ִפ, v.30). Daniel refers to his own wisdom in his ability to make the
interpretation known to Nebuchadnezzar, but in a modestly negative manner of denying himself exceptional wisdom in that he happened to be the revelation’s recipient, and solely for
38 Implied by Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics, 36; Valeta, 72.
39 Oppenheim, 219; see André Lacocque, Le livre de Daniel, Commentaire de l'Ancien Testament (Neuchatel-
Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1976), 46.
the king’s benefit (א ַָּ֔י ַּי ַּח־ל ָכ־ן ִמ ֙י ִב י ִּ֥ ַּתי ִא־י ֽ ִד ֙ה ָמ ְכ ָח ְב אִ֤ ָל ה ַָ֗נ ֲא ַּו, Dan 2:30). The narrator informs the
reader of the secret’s revelation to Daniel in a vision of the night ( ה֣ ָז ָר אֵ֖ ָי ְלי ל־י ֽ ִד אִּ֥ ָו ְז ֶח ְב לאָ֛ י ִנ ָד ְל ן ִי ַַּ֗ד ֱא
י ָ֑ ִל ֲג, Dan 2:19), after he meets the king (v.16).
When Nebuchadnezzar praises Daniel’s ability to reveal a “secret” (Dan 2:47), does he mean only the interpretation (vv.36–45), or the dream together with the interpretation (vv.31–45)? If Nebuchadnezzar refers to only the interpretation as the secret revealed by Daniel and his God (Dan 2:47), does he know something hidden from the reader, and even counterintuitive, about how Daniel came to know his dream? In Daniel’s impromptu, hasty, and secretive meeting with the king,41 in which he is “given time” (הּ ל־ן ת ְנ ִי ן ָמ ְז, Dan 2:16), denied to the sages
(ןיָ֑ ִנ ְב ָז ןוּ ֣ת ְנ ַּא אֵ֖ ָנ ָד ִע, v.8, אָ֑ נּ ַּת ְשׁ ִי אֵ֖ ָנ ָד ִע י ִּ֥ ִד דָ֛ ַּע, v.9),42 the narrator specifies his task only as telling the
interpretation (א ָכ ְל ַּמ ְל ה ָי ָו ֲח ַּה ְל א ָר ְשׁ ִפוּ, v.16), without any mention of the dream. When Arioch
formally introduces Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, where for all official intents and purposes, they never met before,43 Arioch mistakenly reduces the dilemma to making known the
interpretation alone (ע ַּדוֹהְי א ָל ַּמ ְל א ָר ְשׁ ִפ, Dan 2:25), an error he uncritically adopted from Daniel
(אֽ וּ ַּח ֲא א ִּ֥ ָכ ְל ַּמ ְל א ֵ֖ ָר ְשׁ ִפוּ, v.24), despite informing Daniel about the matter ( ךְוֹ ֵ֖י ְר ַּא ע ִּ֥ ַּדוֹה א ַָּ֔ת ְל ִמ ן ִי ֣ ַּד ֱא לאֽ י ִנ ָד ְל, v.15), that the sages were to die for not knowing both dream and interpretation (vv.4–
13). However, in case any sages are present in the court (Dan 2:25–48), Nebuchadnezzar very prudently corrects Arioch, and unwittingly Daniel and the narrator, when he asks Daniel: “Are
you able to make known to me the dream that I saw and its interpretation?” ( י ִנ ָ֛ ַּת ֻע ָדוֹה ְל ל ַ֗ ה ָכ ךְ ֣ ָתי ִא ֽ ַּה
הּ ֽ ר ְשׁ ִפוּ תיֵ֖ ז ֲח־י ֽ ִד א ִּ֥ ָמ ְל ֶח, v.26). There is a viable but counterintuitive possibility that
Nebuchadnezzar is hiding himself as the source of Daniel’s knowledge of his dream imagery (since the point in narrated time of Dan 2:16).
41Goldingay notes that “the narrator tells the story briskly here,” and because of the absence of א ָכ ְל ַּמ ם ָד ֳק in Dan
2:16 (present in vv.24–25), he questions whether Daniel “actually saw the king?” Goldingay, 34. Collins notes
Josephus’s scruple about Daniel’s apparent “impropriety” in Dan 2:16 but “correct protocol” in v.24. Collins,
Daniel, 158. (Collins’s reference to Josephus making Arioch Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s mediator is missing,
but his claim is vindicated by Josephus, Ant. 10.198, 202.) So, if Daniel met the king in Dan 2:16, it was anything
but “official.”
42 See Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics, 27.
43 The double introduction of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar has caught scholars’ eyes as odd. Philip R. Davies,
"Daniel Chapter Two," Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 393; Collins, Daniel, 158; Gowan, 54; Nelson,
Scenario 1: Nebuchadnezzar Reveals the Dream, and God the Interpretation, to Daniel This scenario presupposes that Nebuchadnezzar still remembers his dream. If he was curious to know what it meant, such a desire for knowledge might override his earlier commitment not to tell his dream to any sage (Dan 2:5–6, 9), once he has travelled past the point in narrated time when his task proves impossible for them (vv.10–11), and Daniel’s unexpected visit (v.16) provides him with a new opportunity for knowledge. Alternatively, Nebuchadnezzar may be anxious or contemptuous about his sages, and now that he has come into conflict with them (Dan 2:10–13), he has no option to consult them again and still retain his public face, so Daniel’s surreptitious entry (v.16) may provide him an opportunity to regain control over his sages or to shame them. He wants to demonstrate to them that this neophyte can do what they cannot, but Nebuchadnezzar has secretly helped Daniel, so to avenge his own personal sense of honour.44 This reading presupposes that the sages are present when Daniel narrates and
interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, but it is supported by Nebuchadnezzar’s public orders of burning incense for Daniel (Dan 2:46), and appointing him “chief prefect over all the wise ones of Babylon” (v.48), at the end of the scene. This reading also imagines Nebuchadnezzar as a rather deceptive character who reveals his dream to Daniel when the sages are not present (Dan 2:16).
Scenario 2: God Reveals Dream and Interpretation to Daniel
The more intuitive scenario is that the secret God reveals to Daniel in a vision of night (Dan 2:19) is both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation, without any prior input from Nebuchadnezzar concerning the dream’s imagery. This reading is compatible with both prior gap-fillings that Nebuchadnezzar remembers his dream (and so could, but does not, inform Daniel), and that he has forgotten his dream (and so cannot inform Daniel). When Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to him, he repeats the phrase “you saw” (Dan 2:31, 34, 41, 43, 45), but the perspective from which he describes the imagery is not that of the golden head, but that of an observer (vv.31–35). Since Daniel identifies Nebuchadnezzar with the golden head (Dan 2:38), he is more likely describing the dream from his own perspective as one who
has observed it (in a vision of the night, v.19), rather than the perspective of a participant in the dream, such as Nebuchadnezzar. When the narrator, Daniel, and Arioch only mention the interpretation as necessary to tell Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:16, 24, 25), this could reflect their perspectives that it is only the interpretation he desires or needs to know, if he still remembers his dream. However, Nebuchadnezzar’s corrective reminder (Dan 2:26) reflects his interest that Daniel is not wrongly suspected to have been granted the unfair advantage of being told the dream beforehand. If, however, Nebuchadnezzar does not remember his dream, and has foolishly attempted to bluff, or is fearful of what the hidden dream might mean for him, then his granting more time to Daniel (Dan 2:16) coincides with a loss of personal power over his court, because he is desperate enough to rely on this newcomer, without retaining the dream in his own mind (the lack of knowledge leads to a lack of control). Daniel presents him with an opportunity of avoiding the execution of his sages without losing face, or of identifying the potential threat to himself or his kingdom, implied by his own inchoate sense that his dream means disaster.
The question of Nebuchadnezzar’s memory of his dream in Dan 2 has implications for the extent of his power over his past and present narrated time: does he remember enough of his own immediate past to be able to govern his present? For now, however, I will examine some of the connections of the plot of Dan 2 to wisdom, concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and/or
its interpretation as a “secret” (ז ָר), and Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s likenesses to other
dreamers and dream-interpreters.