Walking Through Daniel, Part 3: The Dream That Shook an Empire
The Book of Daniel Chapter 2
Hello brothers and sisters,
Daniel 2 is one of the most extraordinary chapters in all of Scripture. In it, a pagan king has a dream he can’t shake, his entire corps of professional wise men fails to help him, and a Jewish exile steps forward with a revelation from God that lays out the entire future of human civilization in a single image.
This is also the chapter where the text switches from Hebrew to Aramaic, and where we encounter our first genuinely significant divergence between the three textual traditions.
Let’s dig in.
If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.
Daniel 2:1 — A Textual Puzzle in Three Voices
Daniel 2:1 (NRSVUE):
“In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him.”
Right away, we have a problem. Daniel 1:5 told us that the training program lasted three years. If Daniel arrived in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (around 605 B.C.), then the “second year” of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign would fall during Daniel’s training, not after it. Yet the narrative clearly places Daniel’s dream interpretation after his training is complete (he’s already been presented to the king in 1:18-20).
This is one of those places where the three traditions actually say different things.
The Masoretic Text and Theodotion both read “the second year” (שְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם, shenat shtayim in the Aramaic MT; δευτέρῳ, deuterō in Theodotion). But the Old Greek, preserved in Papyrus 967, reads “the twelfth year” (δωδεκάτῳ, dōdekatō). That’s not a minor scribal slip. “Twelfth” and “second” don’t look anything alike in Greek.
This is a moment worth pausing on, because it shows us three different approaches to the same text.
The Masoretic Text preserves the “harder reading,” the one that creates the chronological tension. In textual criticism, the harder reading is often considered more likely to be original, on the principle that scribes are more likely to smooth out a difficulty than to create one.
The Old Greek apparently resolves the difficulty by reading (or translating from a source that read) “twelfth year,” which would place the dream well after Daniel’s training was complete and well into Nebuchadnezzar’s established reign. Some scholars argue this reflects a different Hebrew/Aramaic source text; others argue the Old Greek translator (or the tradition behind Papyrus 967) adjusted the number to fix a perceived historical problem.
Theodotion follows the Masoretic Text’s “second year,” as it typically does throughout Daniel.
So how do we handle this? If we follow the Masoretic/Theodotion reading (”second year”), the resolution lies in the same accession-year dating system we discussed in chapter 1. In the Babylonian system, the year a king took the throne was his “accession year,” and his official “year one” began the following New Year. Combined with the ancient practice of counting partial years as full years (inclusive reckoning), Daniel’s “three years” of training could have spanned parts of only two calendar years. By the “second year” of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in Babylonian reckoning, the training would have recently concluded.
If we follow the Old Greek reading (”twelfth year”), there’s no chronological problem at all, but we lose something important: the theological implication that God gave Nebuchadnezzar this dream almost immediately, at the very beginning of his reign, as if to say: “Before you’ve even settled into your throne, let me show you how this ends.”
I find both readings instructive. The Masoretic Text’s “second year” creates urgency: God confronts the most powerful man in the world when his reign has only just begun. The Old Greek’s “twelfth year” creates plausibility: Daniel is well established, the dream comes at a moment of imperial confidence. As we’ve seen before with this kind of divergence, both readings enrich our understanding. They aren’t contradictions; they’re complementary angles of vision.
Daniel 2:2-4 — The Wisdom Establishment Fails
Daniel 2:2-4a (NRSVUE):
“So the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be called to tell the king his dreams. When they came in and stood before the king, he said to them, ‘I have had a dream, and my spirit is troubled by the desire to understand the dream.’ The Chaldeans said to the king...”
Now look at the next two words in verse 4: “...in Aramaic.”
This is where the text physically switches languages. From this point forward, through the end of chapter 7, the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Whether the phrase “in Aramaic” (אֲרָמִית, Aramit) is a narrator’s note flagging the language change for the reader, or whether it describes the Chaldeans literally speaking in Aramaic (as opposed to Akkadian, the native language of Babylon), is debated.
It may be both.
The phrase serves as a literary signal: we are now in the Aramaic section, the section that addresses the nations, the section about empires and their place under God’s sovereignty. As we discussed in our last post, this language switch is deliberate and meaningful.
Notice the four categories of wise men Nebuchadnezzar summons: magicians (חַרְטֻמִּים, chartummim), enchanters (אַשָּׁפִים, ashaphim), sorcerers (מְכַשְּׁפִים, mekhashshephim), and Chaldeans (כַּשְׂדִּים, kasdim).
This is the full weight of Babylon’s intellectual and spiritual establishment. These were not charlatans; they were the educated elite of the most powerful empire on earth. Trained in astronomy, mathematics, dream interpretation, divination, and the reading of omens, they represented centuries of accumulated expertise.
And they’re about to be completely humiliated.
Daniel 2:5-11 — Did the King Forget His Dream?
Daniel 2:5 (NKJV):
“The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, ‘My decision is firm: if you do not make known the dream to me, and its interpretation, you shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made an ash heap.’”
Here we encounter one of the most interesting translation debates in the chapter. The Aramaic phrase מִלְּתָא מִנִּי אַזְדָּא (milleta minni azda) has traditionally been rendered as “the thing has gone from me” (KJV), implying that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream and was demanding that the wise men both recover it and interpret it.
But many modern scholars argue that azda more likely means “the decree is firm” or “the matter is decided.” In this reading, Nebuchadnezzar remembers the dream perfectly well but is deliberately withholding it as a test. If the wise men can tell him the dream (which he already knows), he’ll know they have genuine access to divine knowledge. If they can only offer an interpretation of a dream he tells them, they might be making it up.
This is a place where the three traditions actually help us. The Old Greek doesn’t have the ambiguous phrase at all.
Daniel 2:5 (OG/N.E.T.S.):
“Unless you tell me the dream with certainty and disclose its sense, you will be made an example, and your possessions will be expropriated into the royal treasury.”
Notice the clarity of the phrase here. The OG’s Nebuchadnezzar is straightforwardly demanding that the wise men prove their abilities by telling him both the dream and its meaning.
Theodotion follows the MT more closely.
Daniel 2:5 (Theodotion/Brenton):
“The thing has departed from me; if ye do not make known to me the dream and the interpretation, ye shall be destroyed.”
The OG supports the “decree is firm” reading by omitting the problematic phrase entirely. Whether the OG translator was working from a source text that didn’t contain it, or whether he interpreted the Aramaic the same way modern scholars do and simply rendered the meaning rather than the ambiguous words, the result is the same: in the OG, there’s no question that Nebuchadnezzar is issuing a deliberate challenge, not confessing a memory lapse.
Verses 6-10 show little variance between the translations, apart from minor word choices apart from one detail in verse 8 that we’ll talk about in a minute.
After the king threatens the wise men with death and dismemberment if they cannot do as he’s asked (v. 5), he promises great rewards if they can (v. 6). They tell him again to tell them the dream and they’ll interpret it (v. 7). And he replies that he knows they’re just buying time and if they can tell him the dream he’ll know they can interpret it, but if they can’t then they’ll die (v. 8-9). To which they, quite naturally, respond that no man on earth could possibly tell the king his dream, which is why no king, lord, or ruler has ever asked such of thing of his wise men (v. 10).
Now, about that discrepancy in verse 8. Brenton, in agreement with the KJV (which, as I noted in my post about Bible translations a few weeks ago, Brenton built his translation on in the same way that N.E.T.S. is based on the NRSV), returns to the argument for Nebuchadnezzar not remembering his dream.
Daniel 2:8b (Theodotion/Brenton):
“because ye see that the thing has gone from me.”
Daniel 2:8b (NKJV)
“because you see that my decision is firm:”
And once again, there’s no mention of this in the OG. In fact, it omits the second half of verse 8 altogether.
And there’s another divergence worth noting in verse 11, after the wise men protest that nobody can meet the king’s demand. Look at who they say could answer:
Daniel 2:11 (Theodotion/Brenton):
“There is no one else who shall answer it before the king, but the gods, whose dwelling is not with any flesh.”
Daniel 2:11 (OG/N.E.T.S.):
“There is no one who can disclose these things except some angel, whose habitation is not with any flesh.”
In both the Masoretic and Theodotion, the Chaldeans invoke “the gods” (plural), consistent with their polytheistic worldview. The OG’s Chaldeans invoke “some angel,” a monotheistic framework. This is a pattern we’ll see again and again in the OG: the translator consistently nudges polytheistic language toward monotheistic categories.
This is getting ahead of ourselves a bit, but I feel it’s worth noting that we’ll see the same instinct in chapter 3, where the OG renders “a son of the gods” as “an angel of God.”
Although it’s certainly possible that he was working with a different vorlage (source text), the OG translator seems unwilling to let pagan polytheistic language stand without correction, even when it’s placed in the mouths of pagan characters.
Daniel 2:12-23 — From Death Sentence to Doxology
What follows is one of the most dramatic reversals in the book. Nebuchadnezzar orders the execution of all the wise men of Babylon (v. 12), which would include Daniel and his friends since they’re being trained in the Babylonian wisdom tradition. One thing to note is that verse 13 makes it clear that the killing of the wise men had already begun when Daniel hears about it. He speaks to the guard who came to kill Daniel and his friends (v. 14-15), and asks the king for time (v. 16), then goes home and prays with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (v. 17-18).
God reveals the dream to Daniel in a night vision (v. 19), and Daniel’s response is a hymn of praise that is one of the theological gems of the book.
Now, for comparison, let’s look at the text of Daniel’s hymn in all 3 translations.
Daniel 2:20-23 (NRSVUE):
“Blessed be the name of God from age to age, for wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with him. To you, O God of my ancestors, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and power, and have now revealed to me what we asked of you, for you have revealed to us what the king ordered.”
Daniel 2:20-23 (Theodotion/Brenton):
“May the name of God be blessed from everlasting and to everlasting: for wisdom and understanding are his. 21 And he changes times and seasons: he appoints kings, and removes them, giving wisdom to the wise, and prudence to them that have understanding: 22 he reveals deep and secret matters; knowing what is in darkness, and the light is with him. 23 I give thanks to thee, and praise thee, O God of my fathers, for thou hast given me wisdom and power, and hast made known to me the things which we asked of thee; and thou hast made known to me the king's vision.”
Daniel 2:20-23 (OG/N.E.T.S.):
“Let the name of the great Lord be blessed forever, because wisdom and majesty are his. 21 And he changes seasons and times, deposing kings and setting up, giving to the sages wisdom and understanding to those who have knowledge and revealing deep and obscure things and knowing what is in the darkness and in the light, and with him there is release. 23 You, Lord of my ancestors, I acknowledge and praise, because you gave me wisdom and intelligence, and now you have shown as much as I petitioned in order to disclose regarding these things to the king.”
Notice the verbs. God changes times and seasons. God deposes kings and sets up kings. God gives wisdom. God reveals hidden things. And then Daniel’s personal application: “You have given me wisdom and power.”
There’s that verb again. נָתַן (natan), “to give.” God is the giver. He gave Judah into Babylon’s hand. He gave Daniel wisdom. He gave the four youths knowledge. And now He gives Daniel the dream.
This isn’t just repetition. It’s a theological architecture. Daniel’s entire worldview is built on the conviction that God is the ultimate source and agent behind everything that happens; the exile, the provision, the revelation. Nothing comes to Daniel except through God’s hand.
Compare how all three traditions render Daniel’s hymn. The substance is consistent, but the vocabulary choices reveal the character of each tradition.
The OG opens:
“Let the name of the great Lord be blessed forever, because wisdom and majesty are his” (N.E.T.S.).
Theodotion (Brenton) opens:
“May the name of God be blessed from everlasting and to everlasting: for wisdom and understanding are his.”
Where the MT/Theodotion says “God,” the OG says “the great Lord.” Where the MT/Theodotion pairs “wisdom and power/understanding,” the OG pairs “wisdom and majesty.” These aren’t contradictions; they’re different windows onto the same praise. The OG’s “majesty” emphasizes God’s royal splendor. The MT’s “power” emphasizes God’s active force.
And the OG adds a phrase in verse 22 that has no parallel in the MT or Theodotion. After saying that God “reveals deep and obscure things” and “knows what is in the darkness and in the light,” the OG concludes: “and with him there is release.“ That final phrase, “with him there is release,” is unique to the OG. It carries a profound theological resonance: the God who reveals hidden things is also the God who sets captives free. For exiles in Babylon, that would have been no small comfort.
There’s also a subtle but important detail in verse 23: Daniel says “you have revealed to us.” Not “to me.” He includes his three friends, the ones who prayed with him. The revelation came to Daniel alone, but the prayer that preceded it was communal.
And the OG’s Daniel prays differently than the Theodotion/MT Daniel before the revelation comes. The OG says Daniel “proclaimed a fast and supplication” and sought “help from the Lord Most High about this mystery” (v. 18). Theodotion says they “sought mercy before the God of heaven concerning this mystery.” The OG’s language is more liturgical, more formal; a proclaimed fast, a formal supplication, the title “Lord Most High.”
The Theodotion version is simpler: they sought mercy before God. Both describe prayer, but the OG’s prayer has the feel of organized worship, while the Theodotion’s has the feel of desperate, personal pleading.
Daniel 2:28 — A God in Heaven
Daniel 2:28 (NRSVUE):
“...but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the end of days.”
When Daniel stands before Nebuchadnezzar, he doesn’t invoke the covenant name of God. He doesn’t say “The Lord God of Israel” or use any specifically Jewish language. He says “there is a God in heaven” (אִיתַי אֱלָהּ בִּשְׁמַיָּא, itay Elah bishmaya). This is the universal language of monotheism, accessible to a pagan king who would have no framework for understanding the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
But it’s more than diplomatic sensitivity. Daniel is making a theological claim that would have landed with enormous force in a Babylonian court. Babylon’s gods were associated with specific locations, specific temples, specific cities. Marduk was Babylon’s god. Sin was the moon god of Ur and Harran. Nabu was the god of Borsippa. Their power was local and territorial.
Daniel says: there is a God in heaven. Not in a temple. Not in a city. In heaven. Above all territories, above all empires, above all other claimants to divine authority. And this God reveals mysteries. He does what no magician, enchanter, sorcerer, or Chaldean could do.
But here’s where the three traditions diverge in a way that connects to a pattern we’ve been tracking. The MT and Theodotion both have “there is a God in heaven.” The Old Greek has something different.
Daniel 2:28 (OG/N.E.T.S.):
“But there is a Lord in heaven illumining mysteries who has disclosed to King Nabouchodonosor what must happen at the end of days.”
Two differences. First, “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) instead of “God” (θεός, theos). The OG consistently uses the more explicitly covenantal title “Lord” where the MT/Theodotion uses the more universal “God.” This is the same pattern we noted in chapter 1, where the OG called the temple vessels “sacred vessels of the Lord” rather than “vessels of the house of God.”
Second, the OG says God is “illumining” (φωτίζων, phōtizōn) mysteries, not just “revealing” them. The image shifts from disclosure to illumination, from unveiling to lighting up. It’s a small difference, but it changes the metaphor: in the MT, God pulls back a curtain; in the OG, God turns on a light.
Daniel 2:31-45 — The Statue and the Stone
Now we arrive at the dream itself, and here I need to be careful, because how you interpret this passage affects how you read nearly every other prophecy in the book.
Daniel 2:31-33 (NRSVUE):
“You were looking, O king, and lo! there was a great statue. This statue was huge, its brilliance extraordinary; it was standing before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.”
Daniel 2:34-35 (NRSVUE):
“As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”
The interpretation follows in verses 36-45: each section of the statue represents a successive world empire, and the stone represents God’s kingdom, which will destroy all human kingdoms and endure forever.
Here’s what is generally agreed upon across the major interpretive traditions:
The head of gold is Babylon. Daniel says this explicitly: “You, O king... you are the head of gold” (v. 38).
The chest and arms of silver is the empire that follows Babylon. Most interpreters identify this as Medo-Persia.
The belly and thighs of bronze is the third kingdom, which “shall rule over the whole earth” (v. 39). Most interpreters identify this as Greece under Alexander the Great, whose empire was the most geographically extensive of the four.
The legs of iron, with feet of iron mixed with clay, is where the debate heats up. The traditional Christian interpretation identifies this as Rome; the fourth empire that followed Greece and was characterized by iron-like military power but internal instability (iron mixed with clay).
The critical scholarly interpretation often identifies it as a divided Greek kingdom (the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires after Alexander’s death), which would make the entire vision end in the second century B.C.
I find the Rome identification far more compelling, and here’s why this matters for the dating debate over Daniel.
Even if you take the most skeptical possible position and date the writing of Daniel to the Maccabean period (around 167-164 B.C.), the fourth kingdom in this vision cannot be the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucids are part of the third kingdom: they’re one of the fragments of Alexander’s empire, which is the bronze belly and thighs. The fourth kingdom has to be something after Greece, something characterized by iron-like strength and eventual internal fracture.
That’s Rome.
And in the 160s B.C., Rome had not yet conquered the eastern Mediterranean. It wouldn’t take control of Judea until 63 B.C. under Pompey. A second-century author might have known about Rome’s growing power, but predicting its dominance over the known world and its eventual fragmentation? That’s predictive prophecy, no matter when you date the book.
The stone “cut without hands” represents God’s kingdom, established without human effort, which will shatter all human empires and fill the earth. Christians have always seen this as a reference to Christ’s kingdom, which was inaugurated at His first coming and will be consummated at His return. The stone strikes the statue at its feet (the final form of human government), suggesting that the fullness of the kingdom comes at the end of the succession of empires, not in the middle.
All three textual traditions agree on the basic structure and interpretation of the dream. The Old Greek has some minor variations in vocabulary and phrasing, but the four-kingdom sequence and the stone are consistent across all three voices. This is a passage where the traditions sing in unison.
Daniel 2:46-49 — The King Bows
Daniel 2:46-47 (NRSVUE):
“Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshiped Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. The king said to Daniel, ‘Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery!’”
This is a remarkable moment, but we need to be careful about what it means and what it doesn’t.
Nebuchadnezzar “worships” Daniel. The Aramaic verb is סְגִד (segid), which means to prostrate oneself, to pay homage. This is the same word used in chapter 3 for worshiping the golden image. The king is treating Daniel as a vessel of divine power, which was entirely consistent with ancient Near Eastern practice: you honored the messenger because of the god behind him.
But notice Nebuchadnezzar’s confession. Here the three traditions diverge in a way that’s theologically significant.
Daniel 2:47 (Theodotion/Brenton):
“Of a truth your God is a God of gods, and Lord of kings, who reveals mysteries.”
Daniel 2:47 (OG/N.E.T.S.):
“It is certain; your God is God of gods and Lord of lords and Lord of kings who alone brings to light hidden mysteries, because you have been able to disclose this mystery!”
The OG adds two things the MT/Theodotion doesn’t have. First, it inserts “Lord of lords” between “God of gods” and “Lord of kings,” creating a triple title instead of a double one. Second, and more importantly, it adds the word “alone” (μόνος, monos). In the OG, Nebuchadnezzar doesn’t just acknowledge Daniel’s God as the highest among many. He says this God alone reveals mysteries. No other deity can do what this God does.
Is this monotheistic conversion? In the MT/Theodotion, it’s clearly henotheistic acknowledgment. Nebuchadnezzar is saying “Your God is the highest God,” adding Daniel’s God to the top of the Babylonian pantheon without abandoning Marduk or any other deity.
But the OG’s “alone” pushes the confession further toward genuine monotheism. If this God alone can do what He does, the implication is that the other gods can’t, which raises the question of whether they’re really gods at all. The OG seems to be nudging Nebuchadnezzar’s confession in a direction the MT leaves more ambiguous, which is consistent with the OG’s pattern of sharpening the theological polemic throughout the book.
It should be noted here, however, that nowhere, even in the OG, is there an unambiguous statement that Nebuchadnezzar converted and believed in the Lord as the only God. While there is certainly an implication here (and elsewhere) that he acknowledged God as being capable of things the Babylonian gods were not, it does still leave open the possibility that he merely viewed the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the highest of a pantheon of legitimate gods, potentially encompassing multitudes.
This is the first of several moments in Daniel where a pagan king is forced to acknowledge the God of Israel. Each one goes a little further. In chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar will acknowledge that God can rescue from fire. In chapter 4, he’ll acknowledge that God rules over kings, and in the OG’s version, he’ll go all the way to declaring “God is one.” In chapter 5, Belshazzar will learn too late that God weighs and judges. In chapter 6, Darius will decree that all people must tremble before Daniel’s God.
The trajectory is clear: empire after empire, king after king, each one forced to acknowledge the God in heaven. Forced, not by armies, but by revelations they can’t explain and deliverances they can’t deny. And the OG consistently makes each confession a little stronger, a little more monotheistic, than the Masoretic does.
The chapter closes with Daniel being promoted to chief of the wise men and ruler over the province of Babylon, and his three friends receiving positions of authority alongside him. The exiles are now running the empire.
All three traditions agree on the substance of this ending, though the Old Greek may use slightly different language for the specific administrative titles. The theological point is the same: God elevates the faithful within the very system that tried to assimilate them.
If you’ve found this work insightful or helpful, share it with a friend who loves Scripture as much as you do.
Reflections: The God Who Reveals
Daniel 2 is, at its core, a chapter about revelation. The wise men of Babylon can’t access the king’s dream because no earthly system of wisdom, however sophisticated, can penetrate the mind of God. Only God reveals mysteries. And He reveals them not to the powerful, not to the professionally trained, but to an exile who prays.
That’s a pattern worth noticing, because it shows up everywhere in Scripture. God doesn’t reveal His plans to the impressive. He reveals them to the faithful. Moses was a fugitive. David was a shepherd. Mary was a teenager. And Daniel was a prisoner of war eating vegetables in a foreign land.
When Daniel stands before Nebuchadnezzar and says “There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries,” he’s not just answering a king’s question. He’s making a claim that echoes through the ages: the God of Israel is not a local deity with limited jurisdiction. He is the God of heaven, who knows the future, who raises up kings and brings them down, and who reveals His plans to those who seek Him.
And then there’s the stone.
The stone cut without hands. The kingdom established without human effort. The mountain that fills the whole earth. This is the image that should keep us grounded when we watch the news and wonder whether the world is spinning out of control. The statue is impressive; gold and silver and bronze and iron, gleaming and terrifying. But it has feet of clay. And a stone is coming.
Not a stone shaped by human politics or human armies or human cleverness. A stone cut without hands.
That stone is Jesus. And His kingdom will have no end.
Coming Up Next
Next week, we’ll enter Daniel 3 and the fiery furnace, where the three friends whom Daniel just placed in positions of authority will be tested by the very king they serve. And we’ll briefly touch on the first major addition from the Greek traditions: the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, one of the most magnificent hymns in ancient literature. We’ll also begin to see the Greek versions start to flex their muscles with readings that diverge more noticeably from the Masoretic Text.
The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:
Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.
Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.
Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.
Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible
© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.
I’m loving your breakdown of the differences in the manuscript traditions. It’s so fascinating. As much as I love Daniel, I’ve never read it from the LXX, so your work is a real fun treat for me to learn more.
I’m with you on Rome too. I think that It’s interesting how Daniel’s visions almost do like a repeat and enlarge motif, each vision add more or at least different details than the last, with Daniel 2 as like the most basic overview. But after the Daniel 8 vision, I think Daniel starts to freak out because he understands the exile was only supposed to be 70 years according to Jeremiah. But his vision says the sanctuary won’t be cleansed until 2300 days, which would only be a few years, but I think Daniel is thinking that God might not restore the temple for 2300 years, thus prompting his prayer of Daniel 9, hoping that God won’t wait that long to restore the temple. Gabriel then gives him more information to better understand the Daniel 8 vision, and what Gabriel gives is the 70 weeks prophesy, which includes the rebuilding of Jerusalem (so Jeremiah’s prophecy does get fulfilled), and the coming of the Anointed One/Messiah the Prince who comes before the second temple gets destroyed, and that only happens under Roman rule. So if the 70 weeks prophecy which includes the time period of the Roman Empire was to help Daniel gain clarity for Daniel 8’s vision, and if the visions of Daniel 7 and 8 have the dream of Daniel 2 as its blueprint, then Rome is highly likely to include Rome in the Daniel 2 dream. That’s one of my thoughts in support of Rome anyhow.
Regardless, I look forward to your future analyses of Daniel.
That's a pretty solid synthesis, honestly.
I think "almost" is underplaying it though. That's literally exactly what it is. Nebuchadnezzar's dream is the bare bones that frames the rest of the visions.
The more I study Daniel the less I can understand those who try to make a case for the final kingdom not being Rome.
I'm glad you're enjoying it!