Page 122 - Daniel

4:8–9 At last Daniel came in before me—he who was named
Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of
the holy gods—and I told him the dream, saying, “O Belteshazzar,
chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods
is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you, tell me the

visions of my dream that I saw and their interpretation.”

For some unexplained reason, Daniel was not with the other wise men
when the king told them his dream. Questions have been raised as to
why Daniel was addressed by both his Hebrew name and as
Belteshazzar, his Babylonian name. Given that Daniel is so prominent in
this part of the narrative, why the double name?

The answer is quite simple. This decree was going throughout the
Babylonian kingdom, where most people would know Daniel as
Belteshazzar. In recognition of the fact that Daniel’s God is the
interpreter of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar called Daniel by his Hebrew

name, the last syllable of which refers to Elohim, the God of Israel. The
king explained that the name Belteshazzar was given “after the name of
my god,” that is, the god Bel. The double name is not unnatural in view
of the context and the dream’s explanation.

The king said that Daniel possessed “the spirit of the holy gods.” It is
debatable whether gods is singular or plural, as it could be translated
either way. Young, with a wealth of evidence from Montgomery,
considers it a singular noun and thus a recognition by the king “that the
God of Dan. was different from his own gods.” This distinction is borne
11
out by the adjective “holy” (4:8, 18; 5:11). The philological evidence
supports the singular, although Leupold agrees with Driver that the noun
and its adjective are plural and a reflection of the king’s polytheism. 12
Driver notes, “The same expression occurs in the Phoenician inscription
13
of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon (3–4 cent. B.C.), lines 9 and 22.” The word
holy, according to Young, refers to gods who are divine, rather than
14
specifically having moral purity. The ultimate judgment of the
expression depends on how well Nebuchadnezzar comprehended the
nature of Daniel’s God. He obviously had high respect for the God of
Daniel and may have had a true faith in the God of Israel.

Daniel was further described as the “chief of the magicians,”