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 10:1-8
10 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision.
2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. 3 I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude. 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength
____________________________________
Daniel 10 presents us with another vision. This one is related to – or so scholars believe – visions which have been discussed already in Daniel.
Ellicott’s Bible Commentary provides a good background for this chapter, so I’ll include it here below:
This and the two following chapters form the concluding section of the book of Daniel. The vision occurred two years after the departure of the exiles from Babylon, and at a time when those who were rebuilding the city were beginning to experience the “troublous” times spoken of in Daniel 9:25. This section is partly supplemental to Daniel 8:9, and introduces details with regard to the fourth Empire, certain features of Daniel 7:0 being developed. The date of the vision is the third year of Cyrus, the prophet continuing to be known by the name which he had received more than seventy years previously.
We don’t always think about this aspect of the return, but as was the case with Daniel, not all of the captives from Judah returned to rebuild the city. Daniel was among those who did not.
The fourth empire is of some obvious interest to present-day enjoyers of end times study. Hopefully the study, with the help of the Lord, will produce some fruitful understanding of the chapter.
There is some debate, because verse 1 is rendered differently by differing source materials, as to when exactly this vision occurred. You’ll see the points of that debate below. And with that, we’ll jump right into verse 1, in The Pulpit Commentaries:
In the third year of Cyrus King of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long; and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. The Septuagint rendering is, “In the first year of Cyrus King of the Persians.” This is at variance with all other versions. As, however, these other versions are derived from the Palestinian recension, they unitedly do not much more than counterbalance the LXX, “A decree (πρόσταγμα) was revealed to Daniel who was called Beltasar, and the vision is true and the decree.” This is a case of doublet. Evidently some Egyptian manuscripts read חָזוֹן (ḥazon) instead of חַדָּבָר (ḥaddabar), and this, or the rendering of it, has slipped into the text from the margin. “And a strong multitude understood the decree.” The translator here has had יבין, not ובין, before him. Aquila has the same reading; here צָבָא (tzaba) is taken in its usual sense of “host,” “And I understood it in vision.” Here the LXX. has לִי instead of לוֹ. From the fact that the first person appears in the next verse, there is at least a probability in favour of this reading. Theodotion is, as usual, closer to the Massoretic. צָבָא is rendered δύναμις. The text before him has had הוּבין, the hophal, instead of ובין, which is possibly the kal. The Peshitta seems to have used a text practically identical with that of the Massoretes; tile same is true of the Vulgate. The Peshitta renders צָבָא by heel, and the Vulgate by fortitudo. In the third year of Cyrus. The various reading of the Septuagint is of value. It is not to be dismissed as due to a desire to harmonize this date with that in Daniel 1:21, for the numeral “third” might easily be an accidental mistake present in some few Palestinian manuscripts due to the beginning of the eighth chapter. The first chapter, as we have seen, has many traces that it is at once an epitome and a compilation. It is evident that the writer in the first chapter would have the rest of the book before him, and would mean to harmonize his statements with that of the chapter before us. It seems difficult to imagine that the compiler of the first chapter could have this statement before him, and yet write as he did. We should therefore be inclined to leave the question doubtful. Even if it should be admitted that the Massoretic date is correct, as we have already seen, the difficulties created are by no means insuperable. Hitzig has made it a difficulty that Daniel did not avail himself of the permission to return to his own country, granted by Cyrus. Professor Bevan says, “For those who believe Daniel to be an ideal figure, no explanation is necessary.” In that assertion he is mistaken. If Daniel were presented as an ideal Jew, why does he not conform to the ideal of Judaism? The statement that Daniel was a man of nearly ninety years of age at the date of Cyrus‘s proclamation is a sufficient answer to this difficulty. Hitzig thinks he rebuts this answer of Havernick’s by referring to the old men (Ezra 3:12) who remembered the former temple; but these might have been children of ten or twelve when they were carried away captive eighteen years after Daniel, and thus might not be more than sixty when Cyrus’s decree came. Further, we know that only a very limited number of Jews returned, and that so many of the best of the Jews remained that it was declared that the chaff came to Jerusalem, but that the finest of the wheat remained in Babylon. A thing was revealed unto Daniel whose name was called Belteshazzar. “Thing” is the general term dabar, which means sometimes “decree,” sometimes “word,” or sometimes, as rendered by the Authorized, ” thing.” As Professor Fuller remarks, this is to be taken as the title of the rest of the remaining sections. The recurrence of the Babylonian name “Belteshazzar” may be due to the recency of the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. And the thing was true, but the time appointed was long. Hitzig thinks that in the first clause the author betrays his standpoint, as he would not know the thing was true till fact had proved it so. But, besides that an editor might have added this clause, a man might well be certain of the truth of a thing he had got from God; he might wish to impress this upon his hearers. The last clause here is certainly mistranslated in the Authorized. The time appointed was long. צָבָא (tzaba) never means “appointed time,” although it is twice translated so in Job, as here; but in all these cases with greater accuracy render “warfare.” With this sense is to be compared the use we find in Num 15:23 -43, where the Levites’ service in the sanctuary is called צָבָא (tzaba). If we are to keep to the Massoretic reading, then the rendering of the Revised is really the only one to be thought of. Professor Bevan, following Ewald, thinking that tzaba means in Numbers 8:1 :4 “temple service,” would apply this meaning here. As we saw, in considering that verse, the word there was of very doubtful authenticity, we need not apply that meaning here, as it would only suit by being twisted into “obligation.” Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Zöckler, Keil, and others regard this word as meaning “difficulty,” “oppression.” Something may, however, be said for the Septuagint rendering, all the more that it was adopted by Aquila. According to these renderings, we conjoin these words, great hosts, צָבָא גָדול, with the next, which they understand read as third person singular imperfect kal, or omit the conjunction, “And a great multitude understood the decree.” “The host” in this interpretation would here naturally mean “the host of heaven.” We find that throughout this chapter, and in the twelfth, we have to do with the angels, so it is natural that in this title and summary of what is to follow the fact that the great host of heaven understood this mystery should be stated. Theodotion’s rendering, “power,” though supported by Jerome in the Vulgate, need not detain us. The view of Jephet-ibn-Ali is that the host may be of Edom, probably meaning by this Rome. And he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. This is a fairly correct rendering of the Hebrew. Von Lengerke would make the verbs imperative, which certainly they might be, so far as form goes, but the intrusion of imperatives here into the title of a section seems violent. The main difficulty, moreover, is not touched. As they stand, these two clauses assert the same thing, and if with Yon Lengerke we make them both imperatives, we have the difficulty still present with us. It may be a case of “doublet.“ This is an hypothesis we scarcely would adopt except in necessity, since the Septuagint has both clauses. Theodotion, however, has only one of them. We feel ourselves inclined to follow the reading of the Septuagint. The angels understood the matter, and he—Daniel—understood it also by the vision.
We don’t have universal agreement as to other parts of the verse, either. You might notice that the translation provided in the note doesn’t match with the ESV at the top.
ESV: and it was a great conflict
Other: but the time appointed was long
The note provides details regarding this discrepancy.
The last clause here is certainly mistranslated in the Authorized. The time appointed was long. צָבָא (tzaba) never means “appointed time,” although it is twice translated so in Job, as here; but in all these cases with greater accuracy render “warfare.” With this sense is to be compared the use we find in Num 15:23 -43, where the Levites’ service in the sanctuary is called צָבָא (tzaba). If we are to keep to the Massoretic reading, then the rendering of the Revised is really the only one to be thought of. Professor Bevan, following Ewald, thinking that tzaba means in Numbers 8:1 :4 “temple service,” would apply this meaning here. As we saw, in considering that verse, the word there was of very doubtful authenticity, we need not apply that meaning here, as it would only suit by being twisted into “obligation.” Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Zöckler, Keil, and others regard this word as meaning “difficulty,” “oppression.
This is a reminder that it’s a good idea to study from multiple commentaries and/or to study from the source material. Translation is a difficult and tricky business.
Continuing on to verse 2 in TPC:
In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. The versions are close to the Massoretic, only the Septuagint, and, following it, the Vetus, as quoted by Tertullian, omit “days,” in the literal rendering of the Hebrew phrase, “weeks of days”. Mourning. Zöckler and Fuller think this mourning due to the difficulties the released captives had in carrying out their desire of rebuilding the temple. It may have been that he was grieved that so few of the people were willing to avail themselves of the privilege. We are here assuming that the chronology of this passage reckons from the overthrow of Nabunahid, that is, from Cyrus’s accession to the throne of Babylon; but, as we have seen, this “third year” may be reckoned from his assumption of the title King of Persia, San Parsua, in which case it may be the same year with that vision narrated in the previous chapter. Three full weeks; literally, three weeks of days—to mark off the duration of Daniel’s fast from the weeks of years referred to in the ninth chapter. Keil objects to this interpretation, but assigns no reason. At the same time, it is to be observed that “year of days” means a full year, but a week is such a short period that the necessity of saying that it was complete by defining it a “week of days” is not so obvious, and is unexampled.
This verse introduces the somewhat currently trendy (at present) “Daniel Fast” into the Bible. Actor Chris Pratt brought it into the mainstream discourse a few years ago. What does one give up on this fast?
Continuing onto verse 3 in Ellicott:
(3) Pleasant bread—i.e., delicate food. Abstaining from this as well as from the use of oil (comp. 2 Samuel 12:20; Amos 6:6) were the outward signs of Daniel’s grief.
Continuing onto verse 4 now, again in Ellicott:
(4) The four and twentieth day.—After the end of his three weeks’ fast the prophet was upon the bank of the Tigris, where he saw the following vision. Hiddekel is the Accadian name of the river. (Comp. Genesis 2:14.) “Great river” is an epithet usually applied to the river Euphrates, as Genesis 15:18. Daniel was here in the body, and not only in the spirit, as Daniel 8:2.
At this point, Daniel has a vision. (from TPC in verses 5 and 6)
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphas: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. The version given by the Septuagint exhibits traces of confluence, “And it was [apparently reading וַיִּהִי (vayyehee)] on the four and twentieth day of the first month, I was upon the bank of the great river Tigris, and I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man clothed in fine linen (βύσσινα), and girt about the loins with fine linen (βυσσίνῳ), and from his middle there was light, and his month was as the sea, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and feet as gleaming brass, and the voice (φωνὴ) of his speech as the voice of a multitude.” It would seem that the translator had בַּדִּים twice; that might be due to blunder, or may be a case of doublet—a phenomenon so frequent. The difficult word Uphaz, which only occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah 10:9, is omitted; “from his middle there was light” is probably an effort to render this clause, which the translator seems to have read mithoq ‘or. Possibly the mysterious clause, “and his mouth was like the sea,” may be another attempt to render these unaccustomed words. Theodotion merely transliterates בדים into βαδδίν, and תַרְשִׁישׁ into θαρσίς, and regards Uphaz as a garment, which, in the case before us, was golden (χρυσίῳ). In the Syriac of the Peshitta, the translator escapes the difficulty of baddeem by rendering it “glory.” The next clause is also paraphrastic, “the girdle of his loins (back) was of splendid magnificence:” this last is his rendering of Uphaz. The next verse does not call for remark. Jerome, in the Vulgate, renders tarsheesh as chrysolithus—an interpretation very generally followed now. In the Massoretic text, the use of the numeral “one,” almost as our indefinite article, has to be noted. Baddeem is the plural of a word used mainly for the material of which the garments of the priests were made; it occurs also in the vision of Ezekiel. The singularity is that in Ezekiel, as in Daniel, the word is always plural whereas in the rest of Scripture it is always singular. Uphaz occurs, as above mentioned, only in Jeremiah 10:9; it is by some supposed to be a variation on Ophir. As here, it is connected in Jeremiah with Tarshish. Fiirst suggests paz, “fine gold” (Job 28:17), and אוּ—אִי. “coast or island,” thus making it equivalent to “Gold Coast.” Kethem, “fine gold,” is associated in Isaiah 13:12 with “Ophir,” as here with” Uphaz;” this might hint at the identity of the two places. That, however, is an uncertain basis. The fact that Tarshish and Uphaz are brought together, would indicate that, like Tarshish, it was in Spain. Kneucker, in Schenkel’s ‘Bibellexikon,’ decides for Hy-phasis, South Arabia, on the uncertain ground of the sound of the name. Bochart would place it in Ceylon, because Ptolemy mentions a harbour and river of the name of Phasis. Tarshish is the Tartessus of the Greeks and the modern Tharsis; here the chrysolite or topaz, as brought from thence. Margelothayo, “his feet,” is the most common rendering; but yon Lengerke would render, “the place where his feet rested”—a rendering which, while it suits the form of the word, does not suit the context. It occurs four times in Ruth in one connection, and not elsewhere, save here. “Like in colour to polished brass” is a phrase which occurs in Ezekiel 1:7. Professor Bevan says, “What meaning the author attached to קָלָל (qalal),’ ‘polished,’ it is impossible to say.” All the versions render” gleaming,” in both passages; there seems no need to suggest a corruption of the text. The vision here has a great resemblance, though with many pointsof contrast, to Ezekiel 1:4-25; Ezekiel 8:2; Ezekiel 9:2; Ezekiel 10:1-22. Many passages in the Apocalypse show traces of its influence: thus Revelation 1:14, Revelation 1:15, the appearance of our Lord; also Revelation 10:1-3. The vision in Ezekiel 1:1-28. is a theophany; this, however, is not the appearance of a direct symbol of God, but the appearance of one of his angels. The whole aspect is one of terror and splendour. It has been noted that the yellow gleam of the topaz suits well the tint of the Oriental complexion. When we compare this with Ezekiel’s vision, we find a reticence in Ezekiel’s description; he does not affirm (Ezekiel 1:27) that it is a man he sees, but only one in human likeness. Whereas Daniel distinctly says that it was a man. In the case of Ezekiel, it was a theophany which he saw; it was an angelophany which appeared to Daniel. “The voice of a multitude” refers to the sound of the shout of a multitude; the effect it produces is not merely the volume of sound, but the difference of tones and the difference of moment of utterance give a sense of vastness and multitudinousness, always impressive, and indeed awe-inspiring.
I hope you read through all of that diligently as it’s fascinating. I will admit here that I sought out a rendering of the angel, as described above, to post here and I could not find one that really matched the description.
Daniel was not alone, however, as he explains he alone saw the vision. Continuing in Ellicott:
(7) I . . . alone saw the vision.—St. Jerome compares the account of St. Paul (Acts 22:9). It may be added that, as upon that occasion (comp. Acts 9:7), the companions of the prophet heard the voice but saw nothing. The words of the voice (Daniel 10:6) are unrecorded.
Though it is not required, it is remarkable how often a New Testament miracle is preceded by a similar Old Testament one. If you want to add a layer to your New Testament studies, when you encounter a miracle in those books, look for its Old Testament precedent.
Finishing today’s section in TPC’s note for verse 8:
Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. The versions do not call for much remark. The LXX. renders “glory” by “spirit” or “breath;” and the Peshitta renders it by “body.” The Massoretic is superior, as more difficult and more likely to be the source of the other two than either of them. Theodotion’s rendering, δόξα, confirms this. Daniel explains how he alone had seen the vision, and narrates the effects contact with the spiritual had on him, “There remained no strength in me;… And I retained no strength”—a redoubled statement of weakness not necessarily meaning, as Jephet-ibn-Ali would have it, that the one refers to his inability to flee like his attendants, and the other to his inability to stand upright. It is probably due merely to the great impression this sudden powerlessness made on him. For my comeliness was turned in me into corruption. From the natural brightness of the skin in life the face assumed the yellow pallor of death (comp. Daniel 7:28). “And my countenance was changed in me;” comp. also Habakkuk 3:16, “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones.” While the ideas here are the same, the parallelism is made more striking by the difference of the terms.
So this sets us up for the actual message from the angel, coming in the next set of verses.