Daniel 1:8

1:8 But Daniel made up his mind ¹  that he would not defile ²  himself with the royal delicacies or the royal wine. ³  He therefore asked the overseer of the court officials for permission not to defile himself.

Daniel 3:16-18

3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, ⁴  “We do not need to give you a reply ⁵  concerning this. 3:17 If ⁶  our God whom we are serving exists, ⁷  he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. 3:18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.”

[1:8]  ¹ tn Heb “placed on his heart.”

[1:8]  ² tn Or “would not make himself ceremonially unclean”; TEV “become ritually unclean.”

[1:8]  sn Various reasons have been suggested as to why such food would defile Daniel. Perhaps it had to do with violations of Mosaic law with regard to unclean foods, or perhaps it had to do with such food having been offered to idols. Daniel’s practice in this regard is strikingly different from that of Esther, who was able successfully to conceal her Jewish identity.

[1:8]  ³ tn Heb “with the delicacies of the king and with the wine of his drinking.”

[3:16]  ⁴ tc In the MT this word is understood to begin the following address (“answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar’”). However, it seems unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s subordinates would address the king in such a familiar way, particularly in light of the danger that they now found themselves in. The present translation implies moving the atnach from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”

[3:16]  ⁵ tn Aram “to return a word to you.”

[3:17]  ⁶ tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.

[3:17]  ⁷ tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.