Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. (Dan 2:2)
(Occasionally shown as the second form with enclitic; meaning towards the Kasdites); patronymic from H3777 (only in the plural); a Kasdite, or descendant of Kesed; by implication a Chaldaean (as if so descended); also an astrologer (as if proverbial of that people): - into Chaldea), patronymicallyn. from H3777 (only in the plural); a Kasdite; or descendant of Kesed; by implication a Chaldan (as if so descended); also an astrologer (as if proverbial of that people): - Chaldeans, Chaldees, inhabitants of Chaldea.
John Gill: so called, not from their country; for probably all the preceding were Chaldeans by nation; but inasmuch as the study of judiciary astrology, and other unlawful arts, greatly obtained in Chaldea; hence those that were addicted to them had this name
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Probably the Chaldaeans spoken of in this verse did not form a separate class of magicians but denoted the priests, such as those mentioned Herod. i. 181, and was contained in the first class of magicians mentioned in the verse.
In a similar question the selected answer explained:
"casdim" (Chaldeans) were known as expert astrologers and also had a religion based on astrology - that's a possible meaning in 2:2, and that's the interpretation of the oral tradition. The word is used in Daniel 1:4 to denote the language that the king taught the captive boys from the royalty of Jerusalem. It is not used anywhere else in the OT to denote wise men or magicians. My guess is that it just means the kings wise men who the author refers to collectively as the Chaldeans in the same sense that he uses the proper name in 1:4.
In the definition and commentaries and noted answer, the Chaldeans appear to be a separate class of Magicians and/or astrologers, or maybe even priests. These diviners may all have been Chaldean by nationality so it is unlikely to be just Chaldeans. It just does not appear a natural reading to assume that they are a separate class of the same type of the forgoing groups - one would assume these groupings would include all these "classes". I mean if the text only said: "call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers", one would have naturally have assumed that if there are different classes of magicians/astrologers/sorcerers, they would have been included among these three groupings.
If they were a type of priest or prophet, I would have expected Daniel to have used the term familiar to that title and OT readers, like authors elsewhere would have used the term priest/prophet of Baal for example. As the previous explanation, it is a reasonable explanation but not a very convincing or at all satisfactory one.
It does, however, appear that Daniel talks about them as if the reader should be familiar with the term as a type of diviner - though Scripture does not provide any helpful other uses.
The Pulpit Commentary has a long and thorough explanation that makes a few good suggestions, and likely the best explanations I can gather so far, but can anyone shed more light on who the Chaldeans in Daniel 2 were and how they may have been different from the aforementioned, or make the any of the above explanations a bit more convincing?