The Book of Daniel 8:20-27

Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.

Daniel 8:20-27

²⁰ As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. ²¹ And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king. ²² As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power. ²³ And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. ²⁴ His power shall be great—but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. ²⁵ By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. ²⁶ The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

²⁷ And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.

_____________________________

Here we find out with certainty that this vision concerns the Medo-Persian Empire, then the Greek Empire led by Alexander the Great, then the four kingdoms born from the Empire of Alexander the Great, and then from among those four, one particularly bad king that rises and is defeated.

Does this vision refer to a situation then that has transpired already only? Or is it a then and also later situation? We cannot answer that with certainty, obviously, but we can say with some certainty which specifics are referred to with the *then* portion of the interpretation.

It is worth noting, to any present-day Reader that if we believe this was written in the 6th century B.C., that it demonstrates INCREDIBLE accuracy as to events between the 6th and 2nd centuries B.C. This accuracy more than any other evidence is why most secular scholars, and a not negligible number of religious scholars believe Daniel to be a 2nd Century B.C. book. On the other hand, for those who believe it is a 6th century text – and that belief is not without a lot of evidence as well – this chapter is strong evidence for the existence of God, or at least that Daniel could predict the future.

So we’ll jump now into the verses, starting with The Pulpit Commentaries:

Daniel 8:20

The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. All the versions—the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate—have read, not מַלְכֵי, as we find in the Massoretic text, but מֶלֶד The ancient construct case in Hebrew was formed by adding יto the root. Possibly this may be a survival of that usage. In this case the change is due to scribal blunder. When we turn to Jeremiah 25:25 and Jeremiah 51:11, Jeremiah 51:58, we have the same phrases used as here: this is probably the origin of the blunder. For any one to ground an argument, as does Professor Bevan, on this, and maintain that it proves the writer to have held that there were two separate empires—one of Media, and the other of Persia—is absurd. When the true reading is adopted, this passage proves the very reverse of that for which Professor Bevan contends. The reasoning of Kliefoth, that the distinction between plural and singular points to the fact that, while several kings reigned ever the Persian Empire, only one ruled over the Greek, is very ingenious, but, unfortunately, it has no foundation in fact. “King,” it may be observed, stands for dynasty, only that in the crisis of history, when the two powers encountered, each was ruled and represented by one king—Persia by Darius Codomannus, and Greece by Alexander.

Daniel 8:21

And the rough goat is the King of Grecia; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Again all the versions agree in omitting the word “rough,” and in inserting “of the goats,” as in the fifth verse. The authority of these is much too great to be resisted. The Massoretic reading is probably due to a confluence of readings, as the word translated “rough” also means “goats.” The omission of the word “of the goats” is probably due to the inclusion of שָׂעִיר (sa‛eer). Here, as in the previous case, “king” stands for dynasty; and this is proved by the fact that there is implied a series of kings, of whom the great horn is the first.

Daniel 8:22

Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. The LXX; if we take the reading of the Roman edition, agrees with the Masso-retie, save in the last clause, where it reads, “their power” instead of “his power.” In this variation we find also Theodotion and the Peshitta agreeing. Jerome has “ejus.“ It is difficult to decide what is the true reading here. In the reading of the older versions the meaning is that these kings which should succeed Alexander should not be mighty. The reading of the Massoretic and Jerome implies a direct and natural comparison with Alexander the Great. As for the Greek versions, ου is easily mistaken for ω in uncial manuscripts. As for the Syriac, see Syriac character, is apt to be added to, see Syriac character, of the third person, and produce the difference we find. While the Greek versions and Jerome render, “his nation” instead of “the nation,” as in the Massoretic, the Peshitta follows the Massoretic , which is wrong here. The point of the contrast is that the kings that succeeded Alexander were not of his family. Certainly none of the successors of Alexander had an empire nearly so extensive as his. The only one that really even comes into comparison with the empire of Alexander is that of Seleucus Nicator. But not only had he neither European nor African dominions, he did not possess, save for a little while. Asia Minor, nor Palestine, nor India beyond the Indus at all. The Parthian Empire seen sprang up, and wrested from the Solenoid a large portion of their possessions east of the Euphrates. It can well be said, even of the empire of Seleucus, that it had not the power of that of Alexander the Great.

The commentary lets us know that the animal represents the empire and the horns the rulers of the empire… but also not entirely. The four horns on the goat represent the four kings that sprang up after Alexander, with each of those four kings becoming four kingdoms.

Verse 23 is wherein some ambiguity as to meaning begins to arise. Daniel certainly refers to a crisis that occurs under Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd Century B.C. However, might he also be referring to a future event as well?

Just to juggle things in our mind, Daniel previously told us about four future Beasts / Kingdoms. Chapter 8 seems to be focusing on the destruction of beast #2 (Medo-Persian Ram) at the horn of beast #3 (Greek Goat.) What is unclear, though, is whether one of the four horns that group up out of beast #3 *is* beast #4. Alternatively, this action by beast #3 could be a foreshadowing of something similar that will happen at the real End Times when beast #4 is on the world stage. So let’s look at the commentary for verse 23, in Ellicott.

(23) Transgressors . . .—When transgressors have filled up the measure of their guilt so as to exceed the limits of God’s mercy, then this event shall take place. The transgressors are the apostate Jews. Here, as in the other visions, the particulars respecting the most prominent objects of the vision are given more fully in the interpretation than in the early part of the chapter. The king is represented as being “of a fierce countenance,” he is shameless, he has no reluctance in pursuing the cruelties which he has designed. He “understands dark sayings,” or uses falsehood and dissimulation to carry out his purposes.

The context here in verse 23 is that the Jews – who returned to Judea after their captivity in Babylon – have resumed the type of sinfulness that led them into exile prior to the Babylonian captivity. As a result, God is allowing them to be punished.

We’ll look at TPC also, for verse 23, as understanding *who* the transgressors are is important to understanding the meaning of the vision:

Daniel 8:23

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. The versions here are, on the whole, in agreement with the Massoretic. The Greek versions read, “their sins,” as if it were the iniquities of the successors of Alexander that had become full, and thus afforded the occasion of the appearance of Epiphanes. The Peshitta and Jerome have “iniquities” generally, without reference to the kings, but with probable reference to the Jewish people. The probability is decidedly in favour of the Massoretic reading; it was an easy suggestion that the iniquities to be punished were those of the heathen kings. The whole analogy of Scripture leads us to look at the iniquity of the people of God being the cause of evil befalling them. Certainly immediately before the persecution inflicted on the Jews by Antiochus, the progress of the unbelieving Hellenizing party had been very great, as we see by 1 Macc. 1:13-16. It was “like people, like priest;” the people devoted themselves to Grecian games with all their heathen associations, and strove to hide their Hebrew origin and the covenant of their faith, and high priests were ready to abet their practices. A king of fierce countenance; “strong of countenance.” This refers to courage and success in war. Thus Amaziah (2 Kings 14:8), when he wishes to challenge Joash King of Israel, desires to “look in his face.” Epiphanes’ countenance was one that could successfully stand a hostile meeting. The Greek versions render עַץ (‛az) by ἀναιδής, “reckless.“ Understanding dark sentences. There may be some reference to incantations and superstitious observances; it may mean that he was well acquainted with omens, and how to benefit by them. Regardlessness in the matter of religion was a prominent characteristic of Antiochus; but it is quite a possible thing that, like most irreligious men, he was superstitious. He certainly was very keen-sighted in observing the political signs of the times, and very adroit at availing himself of what made for his own advantage. This last is the interpretation of Ewald. Zöckler and Hitzig think it means that the king here pictured “will be cunning to hide his own designs from friend and foe.” Yet more common is the view of Keil, Behrmann, Stuart, and Bevan, that it refers generally to his mastery in the use of artifice. The main difficulty in regard to this view is that usage, does not support assigning such a meaning to heedoth. On the other hand, when we bear in mind that here we have the language of symbol and prophecy, so tricks of strategy and chicane of policy may all be symbolized by “dark sayings,” without necessary reference to sentences such as those with which the Queen of Sheba tested the wisdom of Solomon.

The reading here is not entirely clear, but the consensus seems to be that it is the transgression refers to transgressions of the Jewish people, not their Greek rulers. This reading then becomes even more complex in the next verse, as we try to identify “the mighty men” and “the saints.” Probably not surprisingly, the differing original language texts (LXX, MT, Peshitta) both help and provide differences as to thsese words and identifications. Continuing on in TPC, at verse 24:

Daniel 8:24

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. This verse involves many difficulties, grammatical and exegetical. These difficulties may be said to be present in all the versions of this passage. The LXX. renders, “And his power shall be confirmed, and not in his strength, and he shall destroy marvellously, and prosper and do, and shall destroy the rulers and people of the saints.” Theodotion is so far slavishly close to the Massoretic text; but he seems to have read qodesh, an adjective agreeing with “people,” instead of qedosheem, “saints;” and he omits the negative clause. The Peshitta is very close to the Massoretic. It emphasizes the negative clause by adding denaphsho, and translates “wonders” instead of “wonderfully.” Jerome, more intent on expressing what is his own interpretation of the passage than on representing- the original, translates the first heel (“power”) by fortitude, and the second by viribus suis. That the power of Epiphanes was great—greater than that of his brother and immediate predecessor—is undoubted. It is also the ease that lie was confirmed in Iris place by the Romans, though, if we are to receive the account of Appian, the direct means of his elevation to the throne was the intervention of Eumenes of Pergamus on his behalf. Thus the reference of the phrase, “not by his own power,” may be to this. Little as he might brook the thought, he was but a subject-ally of the great republic. The other interpretations are

(1) that of Theodoret. Keil, Fuller, Havernick. Kranichfeld. and Moses Stuart, that the reference here is to Divine power as setting up Epiphanes to be a scourge to his people;

(2) that of von Lengerke, Kliefoth, Bevan, Behrmann, etc; not by might, but by his cunning;

(3) that of Hitzig, which combines the two—his cunning is divinely given;

(4) that of Calvin and Ewald, that the contrast is with the might of Alexander the Great.

All of these have something to favour them, but also something against them. There is against the first that there is no reference in the context to the fact, true though it was, that Antiochus was raised up by God for his own purposes. Against the second is the pronominal suffix, which would be needless if the contrast were between force and fraud. Of course, Hitzig’s combination falls with this. Against the view advocated by Calvin and Ewald is the fact that it seems a long time to hold the reference to Alexander in abeyance. Still, it may be urged that the vision was before the prophet; on the other hand, the relative strength of Epiphanes and Alexander does not seem to be of importance. We still think that the real reference is to the fact that he did not attain the throne either by inheritance or by his own prowess, but by the help and authority of others, namely, Eumencs and Rome. And he shall destroy wonderfully. Gratz thinks yasheeth, “destroy,” suspicious, and Professor Bevan suggests יַשִׂיח, (yaseeḥ), and would render, “He shall utter monstrous things;” but, unfortunately for his view, there is no hint in the versions of any difficulty as to the reading, and, further, שׂוּח (sooḥ) does not mean “utter,” but “meditate.” We must take the words as they stand (comp. Judges 13:19), and translate, “He shall destroy portentously.” Certainly Epiphanes was to the Jews a portent of destruction; there had not been his like—not Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the temple, was to be compared to him who endeavoured to blot out the worship of Jehovah altogether: not any other of the Greek monarchs. He was unique in his enmity against God and his worship. He shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. The rendering of the Revised Version better conveys the sense of the original, “He shall destroy the mighty ones.” There has been discussion as to the distinction involved here. Ewald regards the mighty as the three other horns of the ten (Daniel 7:8)—an interpretation which proceeds in the false identification of the fourth beast with the Greek Empire. Rashi imagines the star-worshippers; this seems the height of caprice. Jephet-ibn-Ali, who identifies the little horn with Mahommed, holds the “mighty” to be the Romans. Keil and Fuller hold it to be the heathen rulers generally. Von Lengerke, Kliefoth, and others maintain it refers to the rich of the holy people, while עַם (‛am) are the poor. Hitzig refers it to the three claimants for the crown, whom Antiochus is alleged, on somewhat insufficient evidence, to have overthrown; Behrmann and Zöckler, to the political and warlike enemies of Epiphanes, in contrast to the holy people, who were unwarlike. Kranichfeld refers it to the rulers of Israel, as distinct from the people; Calvin to “neighbouring nations.” Moses Stuart would render, “great numbers, even the people of the saints;” while Professor Bevan thinks there is an interpolation here, and adopts a reading of Gratz from the LXX. for the beginning of the following verse. On the whole, this seems the best solution of the difficulty. After Epiphanes had destroyed the “mighty,” that is to say, the political enemies he had, the Egyptians, etc; he directed his mind the “people of the saints.”

As the note states, there’s a lot of debate over how to interpret this verse. The situation seems to point at Epiphanes, but the rest is unclear and subject to varying interpretations. Continuing in TPC:

Daniel 8:25

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. The versions here are at variance with each other and. with the Massoretic recension. The LXX. renders, “And against the saints shall his purpose be”—evidently reading, as suggested by Gratz, v‛al qedosheem siklo—”and craft shall prosper in his hands, and his heart shall be lifted up, and by treachery he shall destroy many, and for the destruction of men shall he stand, and he shall make a gathering of power, and shall sell (it).” Theodotion is, in regard to the first clause, considerably more at variance with the Massorctic, “And the yoke of his collar (or chain) shall prosper.” Evidently Theodotion had read עֹל (‛ol), “yoke,” instead of עַל (‛al), “upon,” and probably סִבְלוֹ (sib’lo), “his burden,” instead of שִׂכְלוֹ (sik’lo), “his thought.” “And in his heart he shall be magnified, and by treachery shall he corrupt many. and for the destruction of many. shall he stand, and as eggs shall he crush (them) in his hand,” reading kebaytzeem beyad yishbar instead of be’eseph yad yishahabayr. The Peshitta has several points of peculiarity, “And in his might he shall prosper: he shall restrain with his hand, and his heart shall be lifted up, and by treachery shall he corrupt many. and against the Ruler of rulers shall he rise up, and with grasp of the hand shall be taken.” Even Jerome,. who is usually in close agreement with the Massoretic text, translates at variance with their pointing. He begins this verse really with the last clause of the previous one, “And he shall slay strong ones and the people of the saints according to his will, and treachery shall be directed in his hand, and in plenty of all things he shall slay many, and against the Prince of princes shall he rise, and without hand shall be broken.” The most singular thing is the omission by both the Greek versions of the phrase sar sareem, which both appear to have read yishhat rabbeem a variation of reading difficult to understand. On the whole, these varying versions seem to have sprung from a text originally not differing much from the Massoretic, save in the opening clause, in which the Septuagint appears to suit the succession of thought better. The return of Antiochus from his expedition to Egypt was the signal for his persecution of the saints; then his “purpose, was against the holy people.” Craft shall prosper in his hand. The account we have in the First Book of the Maccabees shows the perpetual exercise by Antiochus and those under him of treachery. At first, at all events, his craft prospered (1 Macc. 1:30). And he shall magnify himself in his heart. Bevan thinks this hardly accurate, as the hiphil is ordinarily causative. Only Zephaniah 2:8 has this verb used in hiphil as reflexive. The sense, however, seems to be, not that he shall become proud, but that he has many great projects in his mind one (1 Macc. 1:42) being to unify all the various peoples that were under his sceptre, so that they should be one in religion and law. He further had the design of conquering Egypt and uniting it to his empire, and would have done so had the Romans not intervened. And by peace shall destroy many. The word translated “peace” means also “suddenly.“ The Greek versions both render it by δόλῳ. Schleusner suggests that the word was derived from another root. There dues not seem such a root in Levy. The probability is that the meaning passed from “tranquillity” to the notion of “treachery.” The meaning assigned to the word by Jerome is inexplicable, copia rerum. It happens that both the meaning attached to the word shalvah by the Greek versions here, and that found in other passages, harmonize. The treachery of the chief collector of tribute lay in feigning peace, and then slaying the people (1 Macc. 1:29). He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes. The Greek versions, as above observed, have instead of this, ἐπὶ ἀπωλείας ἀνδρῶν στήσεται—a phrase that might be a rendering of לשחת רבבים. The Massoretic text here seems the preferable. Antiochus had certainly risen up against God, the “Prince of princes,” or, as the Peshitta renders, “Ruler of rulers.” He shall be broken without hand. The fact of Antiochus dying immediately after an ineffectual attempt to rob a temple in Elymais, and dying, not from the effect of wounds received, but from chagrin, is symbolized by this statement. The figure of a horn pushing in this direction and in that is resumed; hence Epiphanes is said to be broken. And that he was not overthrown in battle by any rival for the crown is shown by the statement that it was without hands that he was so broken. The Romans resisted his attempt to take possession of Egypt, so he was baulked in his pursuit after one object. He desired to unite his whole multifarious empire, so that it should be homogeneous; that was baulked by the victorious revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabaeus. If he could have made his empire homogeneous, he might have expected to be able to defy the Romans. The defeat of his army by Judas might easily be remedied if he had money to pay his troops, so he attempted the plunder of the temple in Elymais, said to be that of Artemis. The inhabitants resisted so vehemently, that he had to retire baffled. This it was that caused his death. Polybius hints at madness inflicted by a Divine hand.

Here is the secular / wiki account of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes:

Final years

King Mithridates I of Parthia took advantage of Antiochus’ western problems and attacked from the east, seizing the city of Herat in 167 BC and disrupting the direct trade route to India, effectively splitting the Greek world in two. Antiochus recognized the potential danger in the east but was unwilling to give up control of Judea. He sent a commander named Lysias to deal with the Maccabees, while Antiochus himself led the main Seleucid army against the Parthians. Antiochus had initial success in his eastern campaign, capturing king Artaxias and reconquering the Kingdom of Armenia. His campaign went through Ecbatana and he and his forces attacked Persepolis but were driven off by the populace. On his return home, he died at Isfahan in 164 BC.

Various religious explanations exist for Antiochus IV’s death. Apparently, he attacked a temple of the Mesopotamian deity Nanaya in Persia shortly before his demise, and his death was possibly attributed to impiety and punishment by Nanaya in some quarters. Jewish sources gave credit for Antiochus’s death to his earlier impiety at the Temple of Jerusalem. When read literally, there is an apparent contradiction between the books of 1 & 2 Maccabees. The Book of 1 Maccabees places the death of Antiochus IV shortly after the reconsecration of the Jewish temple, while 2 Maccabees places the death of the king before the reconsecration of the temple.  Some scholars have theorized that the “abomination” torn down in 1 Maccabees 6:7 was due to a form of civil unrest, and the true reconsecration of the temple occurred after the death of Antiochus IV. According to 2 Maccabees, he died from divinely-inflicted disease:

But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures—and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body. Thus he who only a little while before had thought in his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea, and had imagined that he could weigh the high mountains in a balance, was brought down to earth and carried in a litter, making the power of God manifest to all. And so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.

— 2 Maccabees 9:5–9 (NRSV)

According to the later rabbinical work, the scroll of Antiochus (Megillat Antiochus), when Antiochus heard that his army had been defeated in Judea, he boarded a ship and fled to the coastal cities. Wherever he came the people rebelled and called him “The Fugitive,” so he drowned himself in the sea. This story is from the 2nd century, however, much further removed from the event than Polybius or 2 Maccabees. It is generally considered secondary and unlikely to be accurate.

Verse 26 refers to the 2300 evenings and mornings, mentioned in the vision as given earlier in the chapter. Via TPC:

Daniel 8:26

And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. The rendering of the LXX. here is, “The vision of the evening and morning was found true, and tile vision has been secured for many days.” אֲשַׁר נֶאֶמֲר (asher ne‛emar) has been read נמצא על, although it is difficult to see the genesis of such a reading from the Massoretic , or vice versa. The LXX. rendering of סתם ought to be observed—not “shut up,” in the sense of being “sealed,” but “defended from interference by being secured as with a hedge.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text, but have חתם, construct of סתם. The vision of the evening and the morning refers to Daniel 8:14. The phrase used. here differs by the insertion of the definite article: but this merely intimates a reference. This statement does not mean that the period indicated by the two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings would end with the death of Antiochus. Certainly, his death occurred in the year following the cleansing of the temple (1 Macc. 6:16). If the writer reckons the beginning of the year according to the Macedonian Calendar, almost a year must have elapsed between the temple-cleansing and the death of Antiochus; but it is the cleansing that is the terminus ad quem, not the death of Antiochus. The pollution of the temple was the event that, of all others, would be trying to the faith and patience of Jewish believers; therefore attention is directed to this. As the beginning of this season of trial is the point to which the whole history of the Greek Empire travels, so the termination of this desecration is the end contemplated. Shut thou up the vision. Certainly the verb satham means sometimes “to hide;” and it is also certain that it is a characteristic of apocalyptic literature to contain, in the text, elaborate directions fur hiding the vision; e.g. the Apocalypse of Moses. It has been argued that this is a preparation for the publication of Daniel in the age of the Maccabees, so long after the date at which it purports to be written. But there is no description of how the book is to be hidden, as in the Assumption of Moses. Moreover, the translators of the LXX. did not understand satham as “hide.” If it had been hidden, and had been discovered, he would have known and translated accordingly. Then when we turn to the next verse, we find that Daniel himself did not understand the command as meaning that he was to keep the vision secret from his contemporaries; so far from that being the case, one at’ his reasons for distress is that no one understood the vision. The vision shall be far many days. That is to say, that a long interval divided the time when the revelation was made from the time of its fulfilment (Ezekiel 12:27); the vision he sees is for many days to come. Before the beginning of the history revealed to Daniel, certainly not many years intervened; but between the days of Belshazzar and those of Antiochus was an interval of approximately four centuries. The Persian Empire rose and fell, and the Macedonian Empire rose and was approaching its fall. At the end of the period, the light of the vision fell most clearly. It was not necessary that Daniel should know the events portrayed to foretell them truly, any more than it was needful that the Second Isaiah should know the exact historical events portrayed so clearly in his fifty-third chapter. Daniel could not fail to know of Persia, and it even did not require more than a knowledge of the past, and ordinary powers of political forecast, to see that Cyrus might, and probably would, found a world-empire. He knew of the Greeks: there were Greeks in the army of Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, we learn from Herodotus (1.77) that Nabu-nahid Labynetus had made an alliance with Croesus, in order to check the advance of Cyrus. We know from Herodotus (1:26, 27) that Croesus subdued all the Greek cities in Asia Minor. To Daniel, who possibly had favoured this alliance with the Western monarch, the King of Javan would mean, not Alexander the Great, as it means to us, but Croesus. But his hopes that Babylon will be delivered by the help of Croesus are shown to be groundless, by the intimation that it will be “for many days.” The intimation that he had made to Belshazzar, of the interpretation of the inscription on the palace wall, did not necessarily, in his mind, militate against the hope that repentance might lead to respite. Daniel may have made use of political expedients to help in the result he wished.

This vision has been widely interpreted. The Seventh Day Adventists, for example, consider Daniel 8:13 a foundational verse to their theology. Here are a couple of interpretations, embedded below:

There are a lot more videos like these, if you go looking for them. This vision plays a large role in various end times interpretations. As we’ve said before, there seems to be a view that Daniel 8 applies both to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but also perhaps to some future person as well.

More on verse 26, via Ellicott:

(26) The concluding words of the angel are intended to comfort the Jewish Church in the days of her persecution. They teach her that God has foreseen her affliction, that it comes from Him in His love, and that it shall last only for a short while. This promise accounts for the firmness which was exhibited by the saints of the Maccabees, which entitles their faith to a place in the same list of faithful men which contains the names of Abel, Abraham, and Moses (Hebrews 11:34-38).

Shut thou up.—The revelation is to be kept safe, because the time of fulfilment is far off, and then the comforting words will be needed. Comp. Revelation 22:10, where the opposite counsel is given, “seal it not, for the time of fulfilment is near.”

Finally, we’ll close the chapter with the TPC note for verse 27:

Daniel 8:27

And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. The Septuagint omits “fainted,” but otherwise agrees with the above. Theodotion evidently has lind the Massoretic text before him; but he has not understood, and has slavishly rendered it word for word. The Peshitta represents also a text practically identical with that of the Massoretes. Jerome also agrees with the received text; he renders the last clause, non erat qui interpretaretur. That Daniel should faint, and remain sick for days—”many days,” says the LXX.—is quite in accordance with what we might imagine to be the natural effect of intercourse with the spiritual world. The mental strain and the intense excitement incident upon such an occurrence would necessarily produce a reaction. Afterward I rose up, and did the king‘s business. We have no distinct evidence of what the business was that took Daniel to Susa, if he was there in reality, and not merely in vision; but we may surmise that it was about the advance of Cyrus Elam and Media were both embraced in the dominion of Cyrus very early. Cyrus had overthrown the Umman-Manda, and delivered Babylon. At that time there seems to have been somewhat of a rapprochement between Nabu-nahid and Cyrus; but at the time before us, Cyrus must have begun to realize his destiny, and possibly would not be easy to on. at with. Daniel may have been plenipotentiary of Babylon at the court of Cyrus, endeavouring to secure a treaty. At the same time, aware that Croesus, the rival of Cyrus, might be called in, he continues the negotiation. I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. The idea of the word translated “astonished” is “benumbed;” it may be exegetic of the first clause, explaining the cause of the fainting and subsequent sickness. It is clear that Daniel did not regard the command “to guard סתם (satham) the vision” as implying that he should keep it secret. We see, as we said above, that his complaint is that no one understood the vision. Behrmann maintains that מֵבִין (maybeen), “to understand,” ought to be translated “marked,” “observed,” but יָדַע would be the natural verb to use in such a connection, not בַין. Hitzig explains this by saying, “He had imparted the vision to no one.” If Daniel had indulged in statements of float kind, the word before us would not have inaugurated a new form of literature. Professor Bevan’s interpretation is as farfetched, “And I was no understander thereof.” The example he brings forward of verse 5 is not to the purpose, because the distinction between the first person and the third is too great. Moses Stuart has the same view.

That takes us to the end of the chapter. As the videos above focused more on 2300 days, I’ll share some videos explaining the chapter as a whole. Obviously there is no universal agreement, but hopefully we’re better able now to identify interpretations that don’t make sense.

It makes sense to interpret Daniel in the context of itself. To do that, we’d need to consider the visions from Daniel 2, 7, 8, and those visions to come throughout the rest of the book. We are not there yet. However, I found a video below which attempts to explain these first three visions in the context of each other.

If you make it through the video above, you’ll learn that the video-maker kind of interprets the book of Daniel in two parts – chapter 2, 7, and 8 together, and then chapters 8, 9, 11, and 12 together. What we just finished in this chapter then belongs in both groups of texts and interpretations.

As we’ve covered, Daniel 8 fits relatively neatly within an explanation of the 2nd and 3rd beasts / kingdoms. Some portions of the book, though, don’t. You must either interpret one of the four Greek horns as the 4th beast, which doesn’t fit well, or you need another explanation.

Let’s then keep this mystery in the back of our minds as we cover the remainder of Daniel. Hopefully by the end we’ll be able to make sense of the whole book, within the context of itself.