Introduction: Court Language, Crisis, and Prophetic Authority
Daniel 4:15 recounts Nebuchadnezzar’s appeal to Belteshazzar (Daniel) to interpret his troubling dream. The verse is a moment of theological tension and narrative climax, as the king publicly acknowledges Daniel’s unique spiritual capacity amid the failure of Babylonian sages:
דְּנָה֙ חֶלְמָ֣א חֲזֵ֔ית אֲנָ֖ה מַלְכָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֑ר וְאַנְתְּ בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּ֜ר פִּשְׁרֵ֣א אֱמַ֗ר כָּל־קֳבֵל֙ דִּ֣י כָּל־חַכִּימֵ֣י מַלְכוּתִ֗י לָֽא־יָכְלִ֤ין פִּשְׁרָא֙ לְהוֹדָ֣עֻתַ֔נִי וְאַנְתְּ כָּהֵ֔ל דִּ֛י רֽוּחַ־אֱלָהִ֥ין קַדִּישִׁ֖ין בָּֽךְ׃
This is the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw; and you, O Belteshazzar, declare its interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me its interpretation, but you can, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.
The verse highlights the linguistic richness of imperial Aramaic, blending honorific titles, embedded clauses, and cause-effect syntax. It emphasizes Daniel’s exceptional role as a divinely inspired interpreter in contrast to the failure of Babylonian wisdom.
Grammatical Feature Analysis: Embedded Clauses and Functional Parallelism
The clause opens with דְּנָה חֶלְמָא חֲזֵית (“This dream I saw”), featuring a demonstrative pronoun דְּנָה (“this”) modifying the noun חֶלְמָא (“dream”), and the verb חֲזֵית (peal perfect 1cs of ח־ז־י, “to see”). The subject אֲנָה מַלְכָּא נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר (“I, King Nebuchadnezzar”) is expressed in full apposition, reflecting courtly register and emphasis on royal voice.
The next clause וְאַנְתְּ בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר פִּשְׁרֵא אֱמַר (“and you, Belteshazzar, tell the interpretation”) places the vocative noun בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר between the pronoun אַנְתְּ and the imperative verb אֱמַר (peal imperative 2ms of אָמַר). The direct object פִּשְׁרֵא (“the interpretation”) precedes the verb, showing focus prominence in Aramaic syntax.
The next segment is an explanatory clause introduced by כָּל־קֳבֵל דִּי (“because that…”). This conjunction כָּל־קֳבֵל (“on account of”) introduces a causal clause. The internal clause כָּל־חַכִּימֵי מַלְכוּתִי לָא־יָכְלִין פִּשְׁרָא לְהוֹדָעֻתַנִי (“all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make the interpretation known to me”) is semantically paralleled with the next clause, but placed first to set up the contrast.
The clause contrasts Babylonian failure with Daniel’s divine empowerment: וְאַנְתְּ כָּהֵל דִּי רוּחַ־אֱלָהִין קַדִּישִׁין בָּךְ (“but you can, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you”). כָּהֵל is a peal participle meaning “able.” The causal clause דִּי רוּחַ אֱלָהִין קַדִּישִׁין בָּךְ is especially important: the construct רוּחַ־אֱלָהִין קַדִּישִׁין may be translated either “spirit of the holy gods” or (from a Jewish theological lens) “the Spirit of the Holy God.” The syntax supports either reading depending on context.
Exegetical Implications: Divine Mediation and Human Limitation
This verse marks Nebuchadnezzar’s public theological shift: he acknowledges that the Babylonian sages cannot help him, but Daniel can. The syntax distinguishes divine ability (Daniel) from human limitation (sages). The participial clause רוּחַ־אֱלָהִין קַדִּישִׁין בָּךְ confirms that Daniel’s wisdom is not his own—it is spirit-filled, other-worldly.
The embedding of the king’s failure to receive an interpretation within the phrase לָא־יָכְלִין… לְהוֹדָעֻתַנִי (“they are not able to make known to me”) shows the contrast between courtly access to knowledge and divine revelation. The syntax thus becomes a theological critique of Babylonian religion and epistemology.
Cross-Linguistic and Literary Parallels
Babylonian texts from the Neo-Assyrian period contain references to the failure of dream interpreters to decode divine messages without the help of special insight. Daniel mirrors this setting but subverts it: the interpreter is not an expert in arcane arts but one filled with a divine spirit.
The Septuagint translates πᾶς γὰρ ὁ σοφὸς ἀνὴρ τοῦ βασιλέως οὐ δύναται τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ἐμφανίσαι and σὺ δὲ δύνασαι, ὅτι πνεῦμα θεῶν ἁγίων ἐν σοί ἐστιν, clearly reflecting the same contrastive syntax and divine-human differentiation in interpretation.
Theological and Literary Significance: God’s Spirit in the King’s Court
This verse represents a theological reorientation: the imperial court must now rely on divine insight rather than institutional wisdom. The grammar drives this home—each clause narrows the frame from national (all wise men) to personal (Daniel), from external failure to internal indwelling spirit.
The syntactic shape of the verse moves from declarative royal speech to implicit theological confession. Nebuchadnezzar’s words acknowledge not only Daniel’s uniqueness but the source of his authority: the רוּחַ־אֱלָהִין within him.
Divine Speech Through Human Syntax: Daniel in Babylon
Daniel 4:6 exemplifies the use of imperial Aramaic to articulate a profound theological claim: true wisdom is not found in status, empire, or ritual, but in the spirit of the holy God within a faithful servant. Syntax, diction, and structure all contribute to this narrative subversion, turning Babylon’s most powerful man into a witness of divine mystery.
