OET interlinear DAN 10:1

10:1a

In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia: Cyrus became king of Persia in 558 B.C. He conquered and entered Babylon about twenty years later, in 539 or 538 B.C. The phrase the third year of Cyrus probably refers to the third year after the conquest of Babylon, about 536 BC.See Steinmann, page 482, and the note in the NET Bible. See the note on 1:21, “the first year of King Cyrus.” Here are some other ways to translate this:

In the third year of the reign of King Cyrus of Persia (NET)

When King Cyrus of Persia had ruled Babylon for about three years

10:1b

a message was revealed to Daniel: The Hebrew clause that the BSB translates as a message was revealed to Daniel is literally “a word/matter was revealed to Daniel.” This is a passive clause and there are at least two ways to translate it:

• using a passive verb. For example:

  a message was revealed to Daniel (GNT)

• using an active verb. For example:

  God sent Daniel a message

  Daniel received a message from God

Use the form that is most natural in your language.

a message: The Hebrew word that the BSB translates as message is a common and general word that means “word, matter, thing.” Use a word that is appropriate for the vision that follows and continues from this point to the end of chapter 12.

who was called Belteshazzar: This is parenthetical information. The Babylonian king had given Daniel the Babylonian name Belteshazzar a long time before. See 1:7b, and spell the name here in the same way as you did there.

10:1c

The message was true, and it concerned a great conflict: The Hebrew literally says, “The word truth and great war.” The BSB has supplied the verbs was and concerned. Here are some other ways to translate this:

a true revelation of a great conflict (NJB)

The message was true. It was about a great war. (GW)

The message was true: The Hebrew literally says “The word was truth.” The word that the BSB translates as message is the same as the word translated as “message” in 10:1b and refers to the same thing. So it may be natural to say:

This message was true (NET)

This revelation was true.

Here is another way to translate this:

the word was true (NRSV)

it concerned a great conflict: The Hebrew here is difficult to understand. The BSB has supplied the phrase it concerned. The Hebrew word that the BSB has translated as conflict can also mean “labor,” “service,” or “suffering.” There are two possibilities of how to interpret this phrase:

• It refers to the content of the message, which involved much warfare. For example:

  it concerned a great conflict (NRSV) (BSB, NRSV, NIV, NJB, GNT, GW, NET)

• It refers to the message itself as being difficult for Daniel to understand. For example:

  but extremely hard to understand (GNT) (RSV, ESV, NASB, GNT)

It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1), as this fits well in the context of the vision that follows.This interpretation is supported by Lucas, page 274, Goldingay, page 275, and Miller, page 277.

10:1d

And the understanding of the message was given to him in a vision: The Hebrew is more literally “and he understood the word, and understanding came to him by the vision.” This indicates that Daniel understood the message because of a vision that he received. Here are some other ways to translate this:

He understood the word, having received understanding in the vision. (NRSV)

Daniel understood the message because he was given insight during the vision. (GW)

The BSB has combined the two Hebrew clauses into one clause. The GNT gives a model of another way to do this:

It was explained to him in a vision. (GNT)

a vision: In this context the Hebrew word that the BSB translates as a vision refers to a revelation from God that is both seen and heard. Daniel received this revelation while he was awake and standing up (see 10:4b). It was not a dream.