Daniel 2:4

The Chaldeans took the lead in replying to the king. They responded in the Aramaic language that was widely used in business and government throughout the empire.

"Aramaic was called Chaldean until the latter half of the nineteenth century." [Note: Young, p. 59.]

This reference to Aramaic introduces the section of the book that Daniel wrote in Aramaic (Daniel 2:4 to Daniel 7:28), apparently because it concerns matters of worldwide concern. Critics of the Book of Daniel have alleged that Aramaic was not in use when Daniel is supposed to have lived, but there is evidence of its use in the sixth century B.C. [Note: See ibid, pp. 38-39.] The Chaldeans addressed the king with appropriate respect: "O king, live forever!" (cf. 1 Kings 1:31; Nehemiah 2:3; Daniel 3:9; Daniel 5:10; Daniel 6:6; Daniel 6:21).

"This represented a wish or hope that the king would live on from one age to another, with no foreseeable termination by death." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 40.]

Evidently it was customary for the Babylonian kings to tell their dreams to their advisers, who would then provide a politically correct interpretation that would satisfy the monarch. However, Nebuchadnezzar wanted his wise men not only to give him an interpretation but also to tell him what he had dreamed.

"The [Chaldean] dream manuals, of which several examples have come to light, consist . . . of historical dreams and the events that followed them, arranged systematically for easy reference. Since these books had to try to cover every possible eventuality they became inordinately long; only the expert could find his way through them, and even he had to know the dream to begin with before he could search for the nearest possible parallel. The unreasonable demands of the king and the protests of the interpreters in Daniel 2:3-11 are in keeping with his character and the known facts concerning dream books." [Note: Baldwin, p. 87. See also A. L. Oppenheim, "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373.]