Daniel saw the vision he was about to relate in the third year that Belshazzar (Baltasar [LXX, Theodotion]) ruled in Babylon. He saw the previous vision in the first year of Belshazzar’s reign. (8:1; see the Notes section and also the comments on verses 1 and 2 of chapter 5 and the accompanying Notes section.)

Daniel referred to himself as seeing the vision while in Shushan (about 220 miles [c. 350 kilometers] east of Babylon), “the citadel in the province of Elam” (a region located at the southeast border of Mesopotamia). The Ulai, the stream that he mentioned, cannot be positively identified with any river or ancient canal in the vicinity. On the basis of the context, one cannot establish with certainty whether Daniel’s being in Shushan was part of the vision or whether he actually was there in person. (8:2; see the Notes section regarding the rendering in the Septuagint.)

When Daniel looked up with his eyes focused in the direction of the stream, he saw a ram standing there. The animal had two horns, with one being higher than the other one. This taller horn came up later. According to verse 20, the ram with the two horns represented the kings of Media and Persia or the Medo-Persian Empire. Historically, Persia gained the ascendancy and, therefore, appears to be designated as the higher horn. (8:3)

The ram charged to the “sea” or the west, to the “north,” and to the “south.” No wild beast could “stand before it” or resist its aggressive action, and no one could effect deliverance “from its hand” or power. The ram did what it pleased and magnified itself. This description indicates that Medo-Persia would be successful in its campaigns of conquest when invading regions situated to the west, north, and south of its original boundaries. (8:4; see the Notes section.)

As Daniel viewed the scene before him, he saw a he-goat coming from the “sunset” or the west, moving over the face of the earth or land without touching it. Between its eyes, this he-goat had a “conspicuous horn.” Verses 21 and 22 identify this he-goat as representing the “king of Greece” or the Grecian Empire, with the prominent horn being the first king. Coming from the west, the first king, Alexander the Great, moved speedily with his forces (as if not even touching the ground), conquering Medo-Persia and extending the boundaries of the Grecian Empire from Greece to India (present Pakistan) and Egypt in Africa. (8:5)

The he-goat charged toward the two-horned ram that Daniel had seen standing by the stream. It came running toward it with strong rage. This indicated that the complete power of the Grecian military force would be directed against Medo-Persia. (8:6)

Daniel saw the he-goat coming close to the ram and being embittered or aggressively fierce against it. The he-goat struck the ram and broke its two horns. There was no power in the ram to stand before the he-goat that then cast it to the ground and trampled upon it. No one was able to deliver the ram out of the “hand” or power of the he-goat. Medo-Persia is thus portrayed as being crushed by the Grecian military force and ceasing to be the empire in the region. (8:7)

The he-goat magnified itself to an exceeding degree in its role as an undefeated aggressive power. When it was “strong,” having attained its greatest strength as a mighty empire, the “great horn” of the he-goat was broken. This pointed to the death of the king, Alexander the Great, who expanded the Grecian Empire to its farthest limits. Four prominent horns then replaced him, the first king. These four “horns” are represented as coming up “toward the four winds of the heavens,” or toward the four compass points, and thus gaining control over the empire that had been created. Historically, after the death of Alexander the Great, four of his generals (Seleucus Nicator, Cassander, Ptolemy the son of Lagus (Ptolemy I Soter), and Lysimachus) eventually divided the empire among themselves. (8:8)

From one of the four horns, another horn, a “little one” (a “strong horn” [LXX]) came forth. This particular “horn” is described as becoming great toward the “south,” toward the sunrise (the east) and toward the “Beauty.” The description indicates that this “small horn,” which represented a king, would spring from one of the Grecian dynasties that came into existence after the death of Alexander the Great. In coming to be great toward the “south,” the east, and the “Beauty,” this “horn” or king would be successful in military campaigns by means of which he would gain control over regions outside his own dominion. (8:9)

The “Beauty” may be understood to designate the land of Daniel’s people, the Israelites. This land was beautiful as the “holy land” that God had given to them. (8:9)

In his comments on this section of Daniel (Antiquities, X, xi, 7), the Jewish historian Josephus identified Antiochus Ephiphanes as being the foretold “horn.” He wrote, “By the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children nor of his kindred that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.” (8:9)

In the Septuagint, the horn is portrayed as striking against the south (literally, “midday” or “noon”), the east, and the north, with no mention being made of the “Beauty.” The Greek version of Theodotion likewise does not include the “Beauty” but indicates that the horn grew great “toward the south and toward the east and toward the force” or the host. (8:9)

The horn is described as growing greater or becoming loftier, reaching up to the “host of the heavens.” From that high position, this horn is depicted as casting some of the host and some of the stars to the ground and trampling upon them. In a literal sense, no king could reach the heavenly host and cause stars to fall, but he could attack God’s people. Because of their relationship to God, they could be spoken of as being part of his host, and their honorable standing before him made them like stars in the sky. The vision Daniel saw thus indicated that his people would suffer greatly on account of the actions that the “horn” would take against them. (8:10)

The Septuagint conveys a meaning that differs from the Masoretic Text. It portrays the horn as being raised to the height of the “stars of heaven” and then being cast down to the earth from the stars and trampled by them. This rendering could suggest that God’s people who were like stars would eventually gain the victory. The Greek version of Theodotion also refers to this horn as falling “upon the earth” from the “host of heaven” and from the “stars.” Then the “horn” is mentioned as trampling “them.” This seems to mean that “stars” also fell from above and that these “stars” (God’s people) are the ones the “horn” trampled. (8:10)

The “horn” magnified itself up to the “prince of the host.” Based on the context, God is the “prince of the host,” the heavenly host that includes all the angels. By attacking God’s people and undertaking oppressive measures to prevent them from carrying out the requirements of God’s law, the king represented by the horn would be presumptuously elevating himself above and against the Most High. (8:11)

According to the Septuagint, the trampling would continue “until the chief captain delivers the body of captives.” This may be understood to mean that the Most High, as the “chief captain,” would deliver those of his people who found themselves in captivity, and the trampling of the “horn” by the “stars” (God’s people) would cease. The Greek version of Theodotion indicates that the trampling by the “horn” would end. (8:11)

When referring to another evil act of the “horn,” the Masoretic Text is obscure. Literally, the phrase could be rendered, “and from him [the prince of the host], the continuity [tamíd] was taken away [rum].” In this context, the Hebrew word tamíd may be understood to designate the regular sacrifice, and this has the support of the Greek version of Theodotion, which reads, “and sacrifice was cast down.” The Hebrew verb rum often means to “exalt” or “lift up,” but here apparently denotes to “lift away” or to “remove.” The form of the Hebrew verb rum is written with an initial he (H). Therefore, the consonants for this form of the verb are identical to those of the plural noun for “mountains.” This explains why the Septuagint rendering links the thought of “continuity” to “mountains” (“the mountains that [exist] from eternity were cast down”). (8:11; see the Notes section for additional comments about the rendering of the Greek version of Theodotion.)

Another arrogant act of the “horn” is casting down the “place of his [God’s] sanctuary.” Both the Septuagint and the Greek version of Theodotion conclude with the words, “and the sanctuary will be desolated.” Antiochus Epiphanes did this. According to 1 Maccabees 1:44-46, he, by means of messengers, sent letters to Jerusalem and other cities of Judah prohibiting the regular sacrifices at the temple and requiring that the sanctuary be desecrated. Then, on December 6, 167 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:54; Josephus [Antiquities, XII, v, 4]) erected an altar upon the altar of burnt offering in the temple and sacrificed swine upon it. (8:11; for the additional comments about the reading of the Septuagint and the Greek version of Theodotion, see the Notes section.)

“Through transgression” or on account of transgression, a “host was given” or delivered up along with the “continuity” (tamíd). As in the previous verse, the Hebrew word tamíd apparently designates the regular sacrifice. The “host” could apply to those of God’s people who did not submit to the demands of the “horn” and became the objects of oppressive measures. It was on account of the “transgression” that the “horn” gained power over the “host” and was able to stop the regular sacrifice at the temple. (8:12)

According to 1 and 2 Maccabees, an element within Israelite society, including priests, committed the transgression. At the time Antiochus Epiphanes ruled, “there emerged from Israel a set of renegades who led many people astray. ‘Come,’ they said, ‘let us ally ourselves with the gentiles surrounding us, for since we separated ourselves from them many misfortunes have overtaken us.’ This proposal proved acceptable, and a number of the people eagerly approached the king, who authorized them to practise the gentiles’ observances. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, such as the gentiles have, disguised their circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant, submitting to gentile rule as willing slaves of impiety.” (1 Maccabees 1:11-15, NJB) “So with the introduction of foreign customs Hellenism reached a high point through the inordinate wickedness of Jason, an apostate and no true high priest. As a result, the priests no longer showed any enthusiasm for their duties at the altar; they treated the temple with disdain, they neglected the sacrifices, and whenever the opening gong called them they hurried to join in the sports at the wrestling school in defiance of the law. They placed no value on dignities prized by their forefathers, but cared above everything for Hellenic honours. This brought misfortune upon them from every side, and the very people whose way of life they admired and tried so hard to emulate turned out to be vindictive enemies.” (2 Maccabees 4:13-16, REB) These developments made it much easier for Antiochus Epiphanes later to suppress the worship of YHWH and to unleash a vicious campaign of persecution against those who desired to be faithful to their God. (8:12)

The Septuagint and the Greek version of Theodotion differ from the Masoretic Text. Both link “sin” to sacrifice (“sins came to be upon the sacrifice” [LXX]; “sin was rendered upon the sacrifice” [Theodotion]). The renderings suggest that sinful acts (idolatrous sacrifices that included the offering up of unclean animals [pigs]) replaced proper sacrifice. (8:12)

“Truth” (“justice” or “righteousness” [LXX, Theodotion]) was cast to the ground, and the one represented by the horn acted as he pleased and prospered. The account in 1 Maccabees 1:56-61 reveals how truth or justice were trampled upon, and how Antiochus Epiphanes succeeded in his efforts against those who did not engage in idolatrous practices. Any scrolls of the law were torn up and burned. Israelites who observed the law were condemned to death. Women who had their baby boys circumcised were put to death and then had the killed babies hung around their necks. Their families and those who did the circumcising were also executed. Nothing seemed to stop the vicious campaign of persecution. (8:12)

Daniel next heard a “holy one” (an angel) speaking to another “holy one” (an angel). The angel asked the one who had been speaking regarding how long it would be for the “vision of the continuity” (tamíd) and the “transgression making desolate, to give over both sanctuary and host for trampling.” As previously, the Hebrew word tamíd refers to the regular sacrifice. Accordingly, the question pertained to how long it would take between the stopping of the sacrifice in fulfillment of the vision and then once again resuming the proper sacrificial service at the temple. The transgression would likewise relate to the service at the temple, for both the “sanctuary” and the “host,” or Israelites who were determined to obey God’s law, would be trampled upon. Based on the wording, the fulfillment of the vision may be regarded as having had its start on the fifteenth day of Chislev in the year 145 (December 6, 167 BCE). It was then that Antiochus Epiphanes erected another altar upon the altar of burnt offering at the temple in Jerusalem and offered swine upon it. A campaign of intense persecution followed, with many of those who refused to adopt idolatrous practices being killed. (8:13; 1 Maccabees 1:54-63; see the Notes section regarding the renderings of the Septuagint and the Greek version of Theodotion.)

According to the Masoretic Text, the “holy one” or angel gave the answer to Daniel (“he said to me”), but the Septuagint and the Greek text of Theodotion read, “he said to him.” The answer to the question was that the sanctuary would be restored to its proper state after “evening, morning — 2,300” had passed (“until evening and morning, 2,300 days, and the sanctuary will be cleansed” [LXX, Theodotion]). One way to view the number 2,300 is to consider one half to be evenings (1,115) and the other half to be mornings (1,115) and, therefore, about three years. In his comments that are apparently based on chapter 8 of Daniel, Josephus (Antiquities, X, xi, 7) indicated that from among the successors of the first Grecian king (Alexander the Great), a certain king would arise, and he would “spoil the temple and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time.” Josephus then said that this happened under Antiochus Epiphanes. (8:14)

That the 2,300 evenings and mornings possibly denote three years seems to fit the narrative in 1 Maccabees. During the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, a priest named Mattathias and his five sons left Jerusalem and began to reside in Modin (Modein). When officers of the king who were to enforce the institution of idolatrous practices came to Modin, Mattathias responded to the request to take the lead in heeding the royal command, “Though every nation within the king’s dominions obeys and forsakes its ancestral worship, though all have chosen to submit to his commands, yet I and my sons and my brothers will follow the covenant made with our forefathers. Heaven forbid we should ever abandon the law and its statutes! We will not obey the king’s command, nor will we deviate one step from our way of worship.” (1 Maccabees 2:1-5, 15-22, REB)

When a Jew came forward to offer a sacrifice on the idolatrous altar there at Modin, Mattathias, seized with passionate anger, killed him and the officer whom the king had sent. He then shouted, “Follow me, all who are zealous for the law and stand by the covenant!” (1 Maccabees 2:23-27, REB) Thereafter he and his sons made their escape to the hills and eventually led a fighting force against those who transgressed the law. Mattathias did not live long after departing from Modin, and his sons continued the struggle. Antiochus Epiphanes commissioned Lysias to be in charge of the fight against the Jews, but those whom Lysias directed to lead a strong military force to devastate Judea were defeated by the Jews under the leadership of Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias. (1 Maccabees 2:28, 38-50, 65-70; 3:1, 2, 10-36, 38-59; 4:1-27) In the following year, Lysias assembled a larger force to end the war with the Jews. “Battle was joined, and in the hand-to-hand fighting, Lysias lost about five thousand men. When he saw his own army routed and Judas’s army in fighting spirit, ready to live or to die nobly, he withdrew to Antioch, where he recruited a force of mercenaries, intending to return to Judaea with a much larger army.” (1 Maccabees 4:28-35, REB) Having succeeded in crushing their enemies, Judas, his brothers, and the whole army went to Jerusalem to cleanse the temple and to rededicate it. Finally, on December 14, 164 BCE, or about three years after the temple had been desecrated, an acceptable sacrifice was presented on the newly constructed altar in accordance with the requirements of God’s law. (1 Maccabees 4:36-54)

While seeing the vision, Daniel wanted to understand it. Then someone who looked like a man stood before him. This one was an angel, for he is described as having the “appearance of a man” and is not called a man. (8:15)

Daniel heard what appeared to be a man’s voice coming from the middle of the Ulai (Oubal [Theodotion]) or from between its banks. The source of that voice addressed the angel standing before Daniel with the words, “Gabriel, make that one [Daniel] understand the vision.” In the Septuagint, the verse continues, “And crying out, the man said, Concerning this ordinance [is] the vision.” Possibly these words indicate that, like an ordinance or command, the things revealed in the vision were sure. (8:16)

The angel Gabriel came closer to where Daniel stood. As the angel approached, Daniel became frightened (“troubled” or “bewildered” [LXX]; “astonished” or “alarmed” [Theodotion]), dropped to his knees, and “fell upon his face.” Gabriel said to him, “Understand, O son of man, that the vision [is] for the time of the end” (“for the hour of time” [LXX]). These words revealed to Daniel that the fulfillment of the vision would occur long after his death. (8:17)

Apparently overcome by the effect the vision had on him, Daniel fell fast asleep while the angel Gabriel was speaking to him. At the time, Daniel’s face rested on the ground, and the angel then touched him and set him on his feet. The Septuagint rendering indicates that the angel “roused” him at the “place” where he was. Daniel needed to be awake and alert to hear the explanation of the vision. (8:18; see the Notes section.)

Gabriel explained to Daniel that he would make known to him what would be at the “latter end” or “final part” of the “indignation” (“at the last of the wrath against the sons of your people” [LXX]; “at the last of the wrath” [Theodotion]). This concluding part of the “indignation” was for the “time of the end” or something to take place in the distant future. According to Rahlfs’ printed text, the Septuagint concludes with the phrase, “for yet unto the hours of the time of the termination it will remain.” For the reading of the Greek text of Theodotion, Rahlfs’ printed text ends the verse with the words, “for yet for the end of time [is] the vision.” The “indignation” or “wrath” would be directed against Daniel’s people, the Israelites, and this future development would be the culminating part that would result in great suffering for them, as they did experience during the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. (8:19)

According to Gabriel’s explanation of the vision Daniel had seen, the ram with two horns stood for the “kings [king (LXX and Theodotion)] of Media and Persia.” Kings represent the entire realm over which they exercise dominion. Therefore, in a collective sense, the ram represented the Medo-Persian Empire as ruled by a succession of monarchs. (8:20)

Gabriel identified the he-goat as the “king of Greece [Javan]” or the “king of the Greeks” (LXX and Theodotion), and the “great horn” between the eyes of the he-goat as the “first king.” The “first king” is here revealed to be the first in a succession of kings and thus the he-goat, like the ram, represents an empire — the Grecian Empire in this case. This “first king” was Alexander the Great. (8:21)

After the prominent “horn” or the first king would be broken, which occurred when Alexander the Great died, four kingdoms would develop from his nation. This took place when four of his generals (Seleucus Nicator, Cassander, Ptolemy the son of Lagus [Ptolemy I Soter], and Lysimachus) eventually divided the empire among themselves. Individually, neither they nor any successors controlled an empire as extensive as did Alexander the Great. Therefore, not a single one of them had the kind of “power” that Alexander the Great had. (8:22)

At the latter portion of the rule of the kingdoms that came into existence after the prominent “horn” was broken (after Alexander the Great died) and their committing of transgressions reached completion, another king would arise. In the Septuagint and the Greek text of Theodotion, the reference is to “their sins” having become full, or their record of evils having come to completion. Commenting on the transgressions of the rulers of these kingdoms, Josephus (Antiquities, XII, i, 1) wrote that they battled against one another, “every one for his own principality.” “There were continual wars.” Cities suffered, losing many of “their inhabitants in these times of distress.” According to 1 Maccabees 1:9 (NRSV), “they caused many evils on the earth.” (8:23)

The king that arose in the realm that had Seleucus Nicator as its first king proved to be worse than all who preceded him. He is described as of “strong face” and as one who understood enigmas. The expression “strong face” could be understood to mean being of “bold,” “hard,” or “fierce” countenance. In the Septuagint and the Greek text of Theodotion, this king is said to be “impudent,” “shameless,” or “bold” (anaidés) of face. His understanding “enigmas” probably refers to his expertise in using enigmas to his advantage, or to his skill in using intrigue, duplicity, or deception to attain his objectives. An example of the impudence and treachery characteristic of Antiochus Ephiphanes is recounted in 1 Maccabees 1:29-32. Two years after he had stripped the temple in Jerusalem of all its treasures, he sent a collector of revenue with a large force to the cities of Judah. When this agent arrived at Jerusalem, he deceitfully spoke “peaceful words” and gained the trust of the people. Thereafter he launched a sudden attack against the city and killed many of the inhabitants. The attackers then took women and children captive and seized the livestock. (8:23)

The king would become mighty, but not by his own power. This may be understood to indicate that what had happened occurred because of God’s permission. In 2 Maccabees 6:12-16 (NRSV), the writer alluded to this aspect when commenting on the suffering that had been inflicted on the Israelites and thereby implied that Antiochus Epiphanes was an instrument God allowed to function to chastise them. “These punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people. In fact, it is a sign of great kindness not to let the impious alone for long, but to punish them immediately. For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in this way with us, in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height.” (8:24)

In an astonishing manner, the king would bring about ruin. He would succeed in his undertakings and “destroy mighty men and the people of the holy ones.” This description is confirmed in 1 Maccabees. 1:16-23. After Antiochus Epiphanes felt secure in his position as king, he determined to enlarge his dominion by gaining control over Egypt. He invaded with a strong force, including chariots, elephants, and a large fleet. Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, fled, and Antiochus with his force defeated the Egyptians, captured fortified cities, slaughtered many people, and plundered the land. Later, he went with a strong force to Jerusalem, where he stripped the temple of its treasures. “Taking all this [treasure], he went back to his own country after he had spoken with great arrogance and shed much blood.” (1 Maccabees 1:24, NAB) In the year 167 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes initiated a campaign of vicious persecution. (See the comments for 8:12.) Numerous Israelites or “holy ones” of God’s people who wanted to live up to the requirements of his law took refuge in the wilderness with their families and their livestock. When report about this reached the soldiers of Antiochus Epiphanes, they pursued those who had fled and prepared to make their attack on the Sabbath. The men did not fight back because it was the Sabbath, and they, their wives, their children, and their livestock were all killed. (8:24; 1 Maccabees 2:29-38)

The king’s “insight” or cunning would make him successful in attaining his objectives through deceit. According to the Septuagint, he would direct his “thought against the holy ones” (God’s people), and the “lie” would prosper or succeed “in his hand.” Antiochus Epiphanes was determined to destroy any of the Israelites who endeavored to live according to God’s law, and he gained his base objectives through deception, making it appear that his military force came in peace when its actual purpose was to attack and plunder. The Greek text of Theodotion refers to the success of the “yoke of his collar” — the success of the oppressive measures he would employ against those who resisted his demands. (8:25)

In his “heart” (his mind or his inmost self), the king would magnify himself, manifesting himself to be extremely haughty. He would try to catch others off guard or without any sense of possible danger and then slay many. As expressed in the Septuagint and the Greek text of Theodotion, he would destroy many by “deceit.” This king would rise up against the “prince of princes,” or the Most High God, doing so through his vicious attacks on the “holy ones” (faithful Israelites), the defilement of the temple, and the abolition of the divinely ordained services there. (8:25)

As indicated in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes did what the angel Gabriel described to Daniel. This ruthless king, however, was destined to come to his end. He would be broken but not by a “hand.” No human hand would be lifted against him to bring about his death. The account in 1 Maccabees 6:5-9, which Josephus seems to have followed (Antiquities, XII, ix, 1) does represent the death of Antiochus Epiphanes as having taken place without a human hand having been raised against him. While he was in Persia, news reached him that the Israelites had defeated the armies he had left in the land of Judah, that they had pulled down the altar he had erected over their altar, and that they had surrounded the sanctuary with high walls as had existed formerly. This report greatly shook Antiochus Epiphanes and sickened him from grief. He took to his bed and remained in a sickly state for many days until he died. (8:25; compare what appears to be a highly embellished account in 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; see the Notes section.)

Gabriel told Daniel that what had been revealed to him about the “evening and the morning” (the 2,300) was “true” or certain of fulfillment. As the fulfillment of the vision was to take place after “many days” or a long time in the future, the angel directed Daniel to keep the vision secret. This may mean that he was not to speak about it to others. The Septuagint refers to the vision as being “shut up” (as if safely deposited). According to the Greek text of Theodotion, Daniel was to “seal up the vision.” (8:26)

The vision Daniel saw appears to have drained him mentally, emotionally, and physically, leaving him in a weak or sickly state for days thereafter. Even after he got up to perform his duties for the king (Belshazzar [8:1]), he was “appalled” (“weakened” or drained [LXX]; “astonished” [Theodotion]) by the vision, and he could not understand it. While Gabriel had given some explanations, there were aspects about the vision that Daniel could not understand. The Septuagint rendering indicates that no one could understand the vision and, therefore, no one could explain it. (8:27)

Notes

With verse 1, the text continues in the Hebrew language, ending the Aramaic section that began in 2:4 and ended in 7:28.

In verse 2, the Septuagint refers to Shushan as the “city” of Sousa or Susa, and Daniel is represented as being “by the gate of Olam [Ulai].” The Septuagint rendering is believed to be based on a different reading of the Hebrew text, one that is thought to be Aramaic derived from Akkadian. In The New Jerusalem Bible, the reading of ancient versions (LXX and Vulgate) is followed. With reference to Daniel, this translation reads, “I found myself at the Ulai Gate.” A footnote then explains that the word “gate” is a conjectural translation that has the support of versions.

Verse 4 of Rahlfs’ printed text of the Septuagint indicates that the ram charged “toward the sunrise [east] and toward the north and toward the sunset [west] and toward the south [literally, to midday or noon].”

In the Greek version of Theodotion, the phrase about sacrifice (verse 11) could be rendered, “through him [or on account of him], the sacrifice was cast down.” One would expect that the masculine pronoun “him” would refer to the “horn,” but this is not the case according to the grammar. The Greek word for “horn” is neuter gender. It may be that the one whom the horn represents — the king — is the one being identified as putting a stop to the sacrifice.

In verse 11, both the Septuagint and the Greek version of Theodotion contain words that are not found in the Masoretic Text. After mentioning the casting down of the mountains, the Septuagint says, “And their place was removed, also sacrifice, and he set it [level] to the ground upon the earth, and it prospered, and it happened.” Possibly, because God (the “chief captain”) permitted the development involving the horn, he is represented as setting it on the ground where it then prospered. After mentioning that “sacrifice was cast down,” the Greek text of Theodotion continues, “and it happened, and it prospered for him” (the one represented by the horn had success).

In verse 13, the Septuagint and the Greek text of Theodotion refer to a holy one as asking the “Phelmouni” about how long the vision would continue. The designation “Phelmouni” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word that can mean “certain one” and, in the Hebrew text, applies to the angel that had been doing the speaking. In the oldest extant Greek manuscript (P967), the phrase about the “Phelmouni” is not included.

The Greek text of Theodotion (in verse 18) does not mention sleep but says regarding Daniel, “I fell upon my face upon the earth” or the ground.

In verse 25, neither the Septuagint nor the Greek version of Theodotion say that no “hand” would break the “horn.” The Septuagint concludes with the thought that the king represented by the horn would make a “gathering” with a “hand” and “repay.” Perhaps this means that the king would assemble captives and then make vindictive repayment for past losses by the treatment he meted out to these captives. The version of Theodotion seems to indicate that the king, as with his “hand,” would “crush [others] like eggs.”