Sources for the Deuterocanon


Well-known member
The Dead Sea Scrolls Translations website has English translations of the scrolls for Daniel at the link below, covering Daniel 1-12. The translations are based on the World English Bible:. Words in Italics are missing from the scrolls fragments because parts of the paper are missing. Words in red are added, and words that are crossed out in red are Masoretic words that the DSS version lacks. Personally, I find the KJV and NET translation of Daniel very good, and and expect that they are better than the Word English Bible. But one nice thing about this website's text for the DSS fragments of Daniel, is that it translates each fragment separately. This is useful because some fragments have the same chapter of Daniel, ie. the Dead Sea Scrolls have a couple copies of the same chapters of Daniel, and the versions of these chapters can be different from each other.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, on the other hand, translates the DSS into English, but it didn't give a separate translation for English. So it only provides a single translation for Daniel 1, another for Daniel 2, etc. Starting on page 482, the book has an introduction to the Book of Daniel.

The DSS Bible says that in the part of the scroll called the Florilegium that quotes from Daniel 12, the scroll refers to "Daniel the Prophet." This is significant because in the LXX, the Book of Daniel is put in the section called The Prophets, whereas in the Masoretic, the Book of Daniel is among the Writings. The rabbis consider Daniel to be a holy person, but not a prophet per se. Thomas Constable writes in his notes in the NET Bible:
The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible. The first two divisions of the Hebrew Bible are the Law and the Prophets. The Writings in Hebrew are the Kethubim and in Greek the Hagiographa.[3] They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than a preaching prophet (cf. Nehemiah).

The KJV, Russian Synodal, and New English Translation basically use the Masoretic as their source text.

The NET Bible's website notes about the version's name:
“NET” is a double entendre, standing both for New English Translation and for the Internet, since this translation is available for free on the Internet (
The NET translation is on Bible Gateway here, with the footnotes at the bottom of the webpage:

The NET website's format for the BIble readings has a separate section for both the Bible text and the footnotes, as well as Thomas Constable's comments about Daniel as a book.

The NETS (NET Septuagint) version has a preface before each book (eg. Daniel, Psalms, etc.) that comments on translation issues. Neither the online copy of the NET on the NET website did this, and nor do the screenshot pages of the NET Bible on Google Preview.

The NETS version includes both the Old Greek version and Theodotion's.

The Scripture Research Institute's Old Greeg Version Google Preview doesn't have Chapters 1-2.

The Brenton LXX translation uses Theodotion's version.

I ran a comparison with between the KJV and Brenton's LXX, and using the NETS translation of Theodotion, I found that the Masoretic and Theodotion's translation are practically the same for Daniel 1.

Historically, the Church Slavonic translation used the Septuagint. I notice that the Church Slavonic version for Daniel 9:27 talks about the abomination of desolation being in the holy place (святилище) like the Septuagint has it, and like Jesus mentions in Matt. 24.

The Orthodox Study Bible comes across to me as a mix of the Masoretic and LXX in the spots where we have manuscripts for both of those two sources, ie. the Protocanon.


Well-known member
In Hebrew, Daniel 1:1 reads:

Bishnat _ shalowos _ lemalkut _ yhowyaqim _ melek _ yehudah _ ba _ nebukadnetsar _ melek _ babel _ yerushalim _ wayyatsar _ aleha.

In the year - third - of the reign - of Jehoiakim - king - of Judah - came - Nebuchadnezzar - king - of Babylon - unto Jerusalem - and besieged - it.
בשנת שלוש למלכות יהויקים מלך־יהודה בא נבוכדנאצר מלך־בבל ירושלם ויצר עליה׃

There is an interlinear reading of Daniel 1 here:


Well-known member
I read the spots where Martin Abegg Jr.'s Dead Sea Scrolls Bible talks about Daniel outside of the section on Daniel, ie. in Abegg's introductory sections.

I read the two scrolls on Daniel 2 on, and read the DSS Bible, KJV, the Synodal, the NET, the NETS of the Old Greek and Theodotion, Brenton LXX, the Church Slavonic, and Orthodox Study Bible for Chapter 2.

One of the theological debates among Christians over Daniel 2 is over the identities of the 4 kingdoms.
The two views are:
A) Kingdom 1 of Gold = Babylon; Kingdom 2 of Silver = Persia; Kingdom 3 of Bronze/Brass = Greece; Kingdom 4 of Iron, and Iron & Clay = Rome
B) Kingdom 1 of Gold = Babylon; Kingdom 2 of Silver and Kingdom 3 of Bronze/Brass = The Medes and Persians; Kingdom 4 of Iron, and Iron & Clay = Greece


Well-known member
Dan. 2:34-35,44-45 that talk about the stone are Messianic, talking about how God would make an eternal kingdom. Verse 34, like most of Daniel 2 is in Aramaic, and runs roughly in an interlinear order:
Hazeh hawayta ad di hitgezeret eben di la bidayin
umehat lesalma al raglowhi di parzela wehaspa wehadeqet himmown.

Looking, you_watched/(or 'it_happened?') until while _was_cut_out_ _a_stone_ outside without hands
and_which_struck image_the on its_feet of iron and_clay and_broke_in_pieces them.

חָזֵ֣ה הֲוַ֗יְתָ ֠עַד דִּ֣י הִתְגְּזֶ֤רֶת אֶ֙בֶן֙ דִּי־לָ֣א בִידַ֔יִן וּמְחָ֤ת לְצַלְמָא֙ עַל־רַגְלֹ֔והִי דִּ֥י פַרְזְלָ֖א וְחַסְפָּ֑א וְהַדֵּ֖קֶת הִמֹּֽון׃



Well-known member
In his essay "How early Judaism read Daniel 9:24-27", Dean R. Ulrich describes how the LXX Version, 1-2 Maccabees, the Dead Sea Scrolls community, Josephus, 1 Enoch, and Jubilees relate to the redemptive concept of 70 weeks in Daniel. I read it and thought that the author did a good job connecting these texts to the 70 weeks theme.


Well-known member
The LXX has the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Youths in the Furnace starting right after Dan. Chp. 3, Verse 23. When I read this section of Daniel in the DSS and Masoretic, the text does feel like there is a jump between the youths being thrown in the fire and Nebuchadnezzar seeing the angel in the fire, as if the story could have something more in the spot where the LXX shows the Prayer and Song of the Youths. In verse 23, the youths are thrown into the fire, and in verse 24, Nebuchadnezzar sees them walking with the angel in the fire, so it seems that something could be described as having occurred in between. The two verses as separated by the word "Then..." beginning verse 24, as if Nebuchadnezzar immediately sees them walking, ie. the youths are thrown in, and "then", ie. the next thing that happens, is that the king sees them walking:
23. These three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the middle of the burning fiery furnace.
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste. He spoke and said to his counselors, “Didn’t we cast three men bound into the middle of the fire?”


I read the DSS English Bible, DSS Bible, KJV, Synodal, NET, the NETS of the Old Greek and of Theodotion, Brenton's LXX, the Russian Synodal, and the Orthodox Study Bible for Dan. 3:1-23. The Google Preview just has verses 22-23 for this section of Chapter 3 in the Scripture Research Institute's Old Greek version.

Different translations take the youths' response to Nebuchadnezzar in verse 3:17, different ways, as to whether they see it as posing God's existence as a conditional.
The Bible's Aramaic runs:
הן איתי אלהנא די־אנחנא פלחין יכל לשיזבותנא מן־אתון נורא יקדתא ומן־ידך מלכא ישיזב׃

Hen itay elahana di ahahna palehin
If is our_God whom we serve
yakil leshezabutana
is_able to_deliver_us
min atun nura yaqidta
from furnace fiery burning_the
umin yedak malka yashezib.
and_from your_hand king He_will_deliver [us].
The KJV puts it so that the youths mean that if the youths are thrown into the fire, God can and will deliver them:
15. Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.

17. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
The King says to them, "If you be ready", then worship the statue, "But if you worship not," then you will be cast into the fire, and "Who is the God that shall deliever you"? And they say that they are not careful to answer him. In the KJV, the youths answer that, "If it be so," then God can deliver them, meaning that if the situation is what the king suggests, then "our God" can save them and will save them from his hand. "But if not..." meaning if the situation is not what the king suggests, or if God can't or doesn't deliver them, then they won't worship the statue.

The NRSV says:
17. If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us.[b]
18. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.”

Footnote b.
If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us, he will deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king
This is probably not correct, because it skips over the word "is", in Aramaic "itay", at the beginning of verse 17.

The NET translation has:
17. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well.
18. But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.”

The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.
tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (ʾitay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ʾitay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 41, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power, thus their statement is rhetorically adapted to the perspective of the person they are addressing.

The key expression is "Hen itay...", meaning "If is...."

The expression "Hen itay di" (If it_be_so that) shows up in Eza 5:17:
Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that [hen itay di]a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.
In other words, the speaker suggests checking "If it is so that," Cyrus decreed to rebuild the Temple.

Fitting the use of hen itay in Ezra 5:17 into Daniel 3:17, we would get the KJV's meaning that "If it is so, [then] our God whom we serve is able to deliver us..." ie. If the situation is as the king suggests, then our God can deliver us.

This supports the KJV over the NET for the opening of Dan. 3:17.


Well-known member
In the OSB, NETS' Old Greek and Theodotion, Brenton's LXX, the Russian Synodal, and the Church Slavonic, I read from verses 23 to LXX 91/ Masoretic 24.

I read the Scripture Research Institute's translation of the Old Greek from verses 22 to 52, and from verse LXX 89 to verse LXX 93 / Masoretic 26, because that's all that the Preview gave.

Dr. M. Gaster gives a translation from the Aramaic "Chronicles of Jerahmeel" of both the "Song of the Three Youths" and of "Bel and the Dragon," along with footnotes in his article here:

I read his introduction, as well as his translation of the Song of the Three Youths (vv. 1-53) and the endnotes that he gives for it.

Verse 49 runs in Theodotion's version: version
ἄγγελος δὲ κυρίου συγκατέβη ἅμα τοῖς περὶ τὸν αζαριαν εἰς τὴν κάμινον καὶ ἐξετίναξε τὴν φλόγα τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκ τῆς καμίνου version
ὁ δὲ ἄγγελος κυρίου συγκατέβη ἅμα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Αζαριαν εἰς τὴν κάμινον καὶ ἐξετίναξεν τὴν φλόγα τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκ τῆς καμίνου

The but _ Angel of Lord descended together around the Azariah into the oven/furnace and swung/shook out the blaze/flame of the fire out of the oven/furnace
(o de aggelos... = But the angel...)

NETS translation
But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azarias and his companions and shook the flame of the fire out of the furnace

Brenton LXX
But the angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven ;

Church Slavonic
49. А́нгелъ же Госпо́день сни́де ку́пно съ су́щими со аза́рiею въ пе́щь
50. и оттрясе́ пла́мень о́гненный от пе́щи...
49. The Lord's angel (or: "The Lordly angel") descended together with those who were with Azariah in the furnace
50. and shook out the fiery flame from the furnace...


Well-known member
The Dead Sea Scrolls have stories about Daniel or mentioning "Daniel" that are noncanonical. You can read them like I did in The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation]
--- The Florilegium, or Midrash on the Last Days, 4Q174, associates times of tribulation with Dan. 12:10.
--- 4Q201 has a version of the Book of Enoch in Aramaic. It gives Aramaic names of 20 chiefs of fallen angels."Daniel" was the name of an angel who was 7th to the fallen angel Shemihazah. These 20 fallen angels defilingly mated with human wives.
---- 4Q242 has the Prayer of Nabonidus, last king of Babylon, after king Nebuchadnezzar. It is similar to the story of the latter.
---- The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation considers 4Q243-245 to be Para-Danielic writings. 4Q252-253 refer to the theme of 4 kingdoms in Daniel 7-8
---- 4Q246 is an Aramaic Apocalypse where a Daniel like figure gives a prophecy to a king on a throne. The prediction has a possible Anti-Christ figure who is predicted to be called or call himself "Son of God", get served by all and whose people "will trample all. People will trample people (cf. Dan. vii, 23) and one province anotlier province vacat until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword." I take it that this is an anti-Christ figure who sets himself up as divine, whose rule is oppressive, and precedes the benevolent kingdom of God's people. However, one of the scholars' ideas is that this is a Messianic "Son of God" figure.


Well-known member
When Daniel was protected from the lions, the Book narrates the angel protecting him. However, in Daniel 3, the angels are thrown bound into the fire and there is no narrative of them being protected, except for the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal version, the Prayer of Azariah.

I read the rest of Chapter 3 (vv. 24 to the end) in these sources:, DSS Bible, KJV, Russian Synodal, NETS Old Greek and NETS Theodotion, Scripture Research Institute's Old Greek, Brenton LXX, Church Slavonic Slavonic, and the OSB.

Daniel 3:25 is the verse where Nebuchadnezzar announces the angel's presence in the fire. The Aramaic (the chapter is in Aramaic) runs:

ענה ואמר הא־אנה חזה גברין ארבעה שרין מהלכין בגוא־נורא וחבל לא־איתי בהון ורוה די [רביעיא כ] (רביעאה ק) דמה לבר־אלהין׃ ס

Aneh we-amar
He answered and said

Ha Anah hazeh gubrin arbeah serayin
Look, I see men four loose

mahlekin begow nura wa-habal la itay behown
walking in-the-midst of-fire and-hurt not are they

we-re-weh di rebiaya/rebiaah dameh le-bar elahin.
and-the-form of fourth/fourth-the is-like the-Son of-God.

The KJV runs:
“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

The NET translation runs:
He answered, “But I see four men, untied and walking around in the midst of the fire! No harm has come to them! And the appearance of the fourth is like that of a god!

NET Footnote
The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.” Despite the king’s description though, the fourth person probably was an angel who had come to deliver the three men, or was a theophany.

One theory is that this is a theophany, like Christ-God appearing to people in the period before the Incarnation. In this theory, the angel in the burning bush was Christ-God. In both cases, an angel was appearing in fire. In another theory, the angel in Daniel 3 was an angel such as Gabriel or Michael, who are referred to elsewhere in Daniel.


Well-known member
I read Chapter 4 in DSS English Bible, and DSS Bible by Abegg, KJV, Synodal, NET w/ notes, NETS Old Greek, what Google Preview has for the SCI's Old Greek translation, NETS for Theodotion's, Brenton LXX, Slavonic, OSB.
I read the sections available for the Forward of the Scripture Research Institute's translation of the Old Greek. The Editor theorizes that the Nasoreans, Nazirites, and Nazareth are all connected, and his views the beasts in the Book of Daniel as reflecting Astrological signs, particularly constellations.

Dan. 4:13 goes:
חזה הוית בחזוי ראשי על־משכבי ואלו עיר וקדיש מן־שמיא נחת׃

Hazeh Hawet be-hez-we
-- Saw I in-the-visions

re-shi al mishkebi
-- of-my-head on my bed

wa-alu 'ir wa-qaddish min shemayya nahit.
-- and-there-was watcher and-holy-one from heaven coming-down.

I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;

While I was watching in my mind’s visions on my bed, a holy sentinel came down from heaven.
Last edited:


Well-known member
One modern hypothesis about the origin of the Book of Daniel is that it's based on an Ugaritic Canaanite legend involving a person named Danel.

Wikipedia's article on Danel says,
Danel (/ˈdeɪnəl/), father of Aqhat, was a culture hero who appears in an incomplete Ugaritic text of the fourteenth century BCE[1] at Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), Syria, where the name is rendered DN'IL, "El is judge".
The text in Corpus Tablettes Alphabétiques [CTA] 17–19 is often referred to as the Epic of Aqhat. ... The name "Danel" had a long tradition in Hebrew culture: he is supplied as the father-in-law of Enoch in the Book of Jubilees. ... According to Edward L. Greenstein, a distinguished professor at Bar-Ilan University, Ugaritic texts solved the biblical puzzle of the anachronism of Ezekiel mentioning Daniel at Ezekiel 14:13–16; it is because in both Ugaritic and the Ancient Hebrew texts, it is correctly Danel—the yod is missing in the originals.

Wikipedia's summary of the "Tale of Aqhat" is here:

In "Ezekiel’s Daniel: Biblical Hero or Ancient Ugaritic Legend?", Jake Leigh-Howarth compares arguments about whether the "Daniel" in the Book of Ezekiel is (A) the Jewish Daniel from the Book of Daniel or is (B) the "Danel" from the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat.

A Reddit entry on Ugaritic's relation to Biblical motifs discusses ideas that the Ugaritic "Danel" character was the same as Ezekiel's wise "Danel" figure.

The Mathaytes blog's article "Ezekiel's Daniel" notes that in the Bible,
the spelling of the name in Ezekiel דנאל (dn'l or Danel) is different from the spelling used elsewhere to refer to the prophet Daniel דניאל (dny'l or Daniel).
The blog article argues that Ezekiel's Danel is the same as the Daniel in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian court in the Book of Daniel.

The Biblia Hebraica blog has three articles on whether the Danel of the "Tale of Aqhat" or the Daniel of the Book of Daniel is the same as the "Danel/Daniel" of Ezekiel.
"Honorable Mentions: Historical or Literary?",
"Daniel in Ezekiel 14: Part 1",
"Daniel in Ezekiel 14: Part 2,"

Some observations:
  1. It seems odd that "Danel"/Daniel in Ezekiel is spelled different than Daniel in the Book of Daniel, if these refer to the same people. Are there other cases of the same person's name being spelled differently in the Bible?

  2. It seems odd for Daniel to be listed nonchronologically in the middle of "Noah, Daniel, and Job" in Ezekiel 14, if this is the 7th century BC Daniel. Are there other analogous cases where the Bible lists names nonchronologically in that way?

  3. When Ezekiel 28 declares, "Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee", this brings to mind Daniel 2, when Nebuchadnezzar tells Daniel, "Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret." Daniel 2 has other verses about God revealing secrets to Daniel. Then in Daniel 4, the king tells Daniel, "I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee". This can serve as evidence that Ezekiel was referencing the Babylonian-era Daniel, or alternately that the Book of Daniel was referencing the figure of Daniel in Ezekiel.

  4. Since Ezekiel didn't give much information on his "Danel"/Daniel figure, the normal conclusion is that he must be talking about a righteous person so well known that Danel/Daniel would not need much introduction. This could be someone like Noah and Job, who were both very ancient, Biblical figures. "Noah" and "Job" are known to us from the Bible, but I don't happen to know of them by those names from outside the Bible. In contrast, neither the Ugaritic Danel, nor the 7th century BC Daniel were both very ancient for Ezekiel's time and Biblical, but rather only one or the other.
One theory is that Danel/Daniel in Ezekiel 14 refers to the Ugaritic Danel, and Daniel in Ezekiel 28 refers to the Jewish exile Daniel. This is because the Bible at times uses dual fulfillments and dual images, and because the Masoretic gives two readings for Danel/Daniel in Ezekiel 14,28 - the written one is "Danel" and the marking for its pronunciation is "Daniel."
Further, the context for Danel in Ezekiel 14 can point to a figure who lived in the pre-Davidic era, and between Noah and Job, and who, like Noah and Job were involved in saving or reconstituting their own families. The Ugaritic Danel was able to get vultures resurrected who he thought may have eaten his son Aqhat, so the flow of the story points to Danel resurrecting his son. Ezekiel 14:15-16 alludes to this theme of them saving their children:
If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:
Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.
One objection to equating Danel in Ezekiel 14 with the Ugaritic Danel is that the Ugaritic one acted in a Polytheistic context, being involved with Canaanite gods like Baal, whereas Ezekiel was against Polytheism. However, Ezekiel 14 entails these three figures - Noah, Danel, and Job as being ineffective for salvation in the given case - beasts roving the land, so Ezekiel 14 isn't necessarily holding up this particular Danel.

In contrast, Ezekiel 28 goes along with the story of the Jewish Exile Daniel. in Ezekiel 28:1-2, the king of Tye holds himself out as God, like how Nebuchadnezzar made a huge statue of himself and required people to bow to it in the Book of Daniel. In Daniel 2-4, the Babylonian king tested Daniel's wisdom, and God revealed to Daniel the king's dream about a statue of gold, silver, brass, and iron with clay, and its meaning. The Babylonian king said that he recognized Daniel as getting such "secrets" revealed to him, "no secret troubleth thee." (Dan. 4) This goes along with Ezek. 28, where the prophet Ezekiel says sarcastically about the king of Tyre:
3. Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:
4. With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:

Robert Kraft, in his article "Daniel Outside the Traditional Jewish Canon: in the Footsteps of M.R.James", notes that besides the Ugaritic Danel being discussed in the Tale of Aqhat, "This Danel is also mentioned in the Ugaritic list of rulers." Kraft adds:
an early "Dan'el" figure also appears in connection with the tradition of the "watchers" who came down ("fell") from heaven and wrought all sorts of mischief among human women and men (see the entry on "Watchers, Giants, etc."). The Enochic Book of the Watchers 6.7 (see also Enochic Parables 69.2) has a Danel among the leaders of this group. In the book of Jubilees, which otherwise has strong connections to the Enochic materials, a human "Danel" is named as an uncle, and father-in-law, to Enoch himself (father of Enoch's wife Edna; see Jubilees 4.20). It is possible that these are all variant reflections of the same archaic legendary figure, who is even repeatedly called "Danel the Rapha-man" in the Ugaritic text, which has led to the conjecture that perhaps he is connected to the legendary "tall" "Rephaim" of Deut 2.11 and 20...

Kraft links to the Ugaritic text, "Danel's Need for a Son,"
and to "Aqahat, Paghat, El, Anath, Daniel, Danel"

I read the Tale of Aqhat here online:
Last edited:


Well-known member
Another way in which Ezekiel 28 goes along with the story of the Jewish Exile Daniel is that the story of the Jewish exile Daniel involved the arrogance and attempted self-divinization of the Babylonian king, and Ezekiel 28 puts the Tyrian king's arrogant attempted self-divinization in vv. 1-2 next to the reference to Daniel's wisdom in Dan. 3. One objection to equating the Jewish exile Daniel with Ezekiel's Daniel is that they would have been contemporaries and the audience might not have heard of the Jewish Daniel. However, the Jewish exile was a top minister in the Babylonian court, which would give him contemporary reputation in that period, especially as the Babylonians ruled Judah then.

Michael Coogan in his article "Canaanite Religion: The Literature," in "The Encyclopedia of Religion," summarizes the Ugaritic Danel story and compares it to a few other ancient Middle East stories, like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I read "Danel's Need for a Son" (excerpted from M. D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan) and "Aqahat, Paghat, El, Anath, Daniel, Danel" from Kraft's links.


Well-known member
Here I'll compare translations of the Old Greek Version that I've found online.

The NETS translation for Daniel 1 begins:
"During the third year of King Ioakim of Judea, when Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylon, arrived at Ierousalem, he besieged it."

A rough copy of Scriptural Research Institute's Old Greek version is in full (although missing the words with footnotes) on
The same chapter begins: "During the third year of King Jehoiakim when King Nebuchadnezzar..." has a 2020 translation into English of the Old Greek version of Daniel. It begins:
"In the third year of the reign of Joakim king of Judea, came Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon to Jerusalem, and besieged it:"
I don't know who exactly made this translation and couldn't find an exact match to it elsewhere online. It's meant for the public domain, and Bob B. posted this text on Youtube here:

A copy of H. B. Swete's Greek-language text of the Old Greek version placed next to Theodotion's version is here, starting on page 498:

I read that the Lexham English Septuagint translation is notable for using Hebrew versions of names instead of the Greek versions (eg. Nebuchadnezzar instead of Nabuchodonosor), and that it has "Cyrus" where the Old Greek and Masoretic texts say "Darius". I found it offered on Yumpu with a free trial, and in college libraries using Worldcat, and for sale online for under $12.

The Scriptural Research Institute's translation of the Old Greek Version counts the Masoretic Chapter 5 as "Chapter 8".

Here is a chronological chart of Daniel's chapters:


Well-known member
For Chapter 5, I read the same sources as I did for Chapter 4.

A central verse in Daniel 5's chastic structure is v. 17:
באדין ענה דניאל ואמר קדם מלכא
Bedayin aneh Daniyel we-mar qodam malka,
Then answered Daniel and-said before king,

מתנתך לך להוין ונבזביתך לאחרן הב
mattenetak lak lehewyan u-nebazabeyatak le-ahoran hab;
your-gifts for-yourself let-be and-your-rewards to-another give;

ברם כתבא אקרא למלכא ופשרא אהודענה׃
be-ram ketaba 'eqre le-malka u-pishra 'ahowdinneh.
yet the-writing I-will-read to-king and-interpretation-the make-known-to-him

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.


Well-known member
A rough copy of the Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is here:
Chapter 1 begins: "...the third year of King Jehoiakim of Judah, after Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had arrived at Jerusalem, he began to besiege it."
I am thinking about buying the LES, or else reading it in a nearby college library, because these kinds of online copies look like they are low quality, as they are missing words.


Well-known member
1 Chronicles 3:1 refers apparently to David as having a son named "Daniel." One theory is that in 2 Samuel 3:3, David's son Chileab/Kileab (כִלְאָ֔ב) is actually named "Daniel." This is because each verse refers to David's second son, by "Abigail," but gives them different names, like Daniel or Chileab.
2 Samuel 3:3
וּמִשְׁנֵ֣הוּ כִלְאָ֔ב [לַאֲבִיגֵל כ] (לַאֲֽבִיגַ֕יִל ק) אֵ֖שֶׁת נָבָ֣ל הַֽכַּרְמְלִ֑י

2 Sam. 3 (KJV)
2. And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
3. And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite...

2 Sam. 3 (NET)
2. Now sons were born to David in Hebron. His firstborn was Amnon, born to Ahinoam the Jezreelite.
3. His second son [1] was Kileab, born to Abigail the widow[2] of Nabal the Carmelite.

NET Footnotes
1. tn The Hebrew text does not have the word “son.” So also in vv. 3-5.
2. tn Heb “wife.”

2 Sam. 3:3 (Septuagint)
3. καὶ ὁ δεύτερος αὐτοῦ Δαλουια τῆς Αβιγαιας τῆς Καρμηλίας...
(3. And the second, Dalouia of Abigaias of Karmelias...)

NETS (Septuagint)
3. and his second Dalouia by Abigaia the Carmelite...
1 Chronicles 3:1
וְאֵ֤לֶּה הָיוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י דָויִ֔ד אֲשֶׁ֥ר נֹֽולַד־לֹ֖ו בְּחֶבְרֹ֑ון הַבְּכֹ֣ור ׀ אַמְנֹ֗ן לַאֲחִינֹ֙עַם֙ הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִ֔ית שֵׁנִי֙ דָּנִיֵּ֔אל לַאֲבִיגַ֖יִל הַֽכַּרְמְלִֽית׃

1. Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess:

1. These were the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron: The firstborn was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel; the second was Daniel, whose mother was Abigail from Carmel;

...ὁ δεύτερος Δανιηλ τῇ Αβιγαια τῇ Καρμηλίᾳ
(... the second Daniil of Abigaia of Karmilia)

...the second Daniel by Abigaia the Carmelite...

Brown Driver Briggs notes for the meanings of the name David:
1 Chronicles 3:1, דָּנִיֵּאל, but dub[ious], compare Che[OP 106]; ᵐ5 Δαμνιηλ, ᵐ5L & Manuscripts Δαλουια;
"" 2 Samuel 3:3 כִּלְאָב, ᵐ5 Δαλουια; Klo[Sm] proposes דֹּדִיָּה, & in Chronicles דֹּדִיאֵל, but grounds precarious.

Dr. Claude Mariottini writes:
Chileab was the son of David and Abigail. He probably died at an early age because he is never listed among David’s sons who vied for the throne. His name appears as Daniel in 1 Chronicles 3:1.
DPedia notes:
Though being the second son, Chileab was not a contender for the throne of Israel, even after the death of the first-born Amnon, the third-born Absalom and fourth-born Adonijah. He may have died before his father. Later rabbinic traditions name him as one of four ancient Israelites who died without sin, the other three being Benjamin, Jesse and Amram. The throne eventually passed to his younger half brother, Solomon. Chileab is known as Daluyah (Ancient Greek: Δαλουιὰ, Dalouià) in 2 Samuel in the Septuagint. According to Rashi, Rabbi Isaac said that some questioned whether Abigail was pregnant through David or her first husband, Nabal; therefore, God arranged that Chileab would resemble David. It is possible his name "Chileab," which can be translated "perfection of the father," is a reference to (or cause of) that legend.

The Revised English Version's commentary has:
Abigail had been the wife of Nabal, who was evil and whom David was going to kill, but Abigail interceded for her husband and household and kept David from killing Nabal (1 Sam. 25:2-35). Nabal died, likely of a stroke (1 Sam. 25:37-38), and then David sent and took Abigail as a wife (1 Sam. 25:39-42). Abigail’s son, David’s second son, was likely first named “Daniel” (thus the name in 1 Chron. 3:1). “Daniel” is a compound of “God” (el) and the verb “judge” and would have meant something like, “God has judged,” with the idea being, “God has judged me and found me innocent.” Thus, Daniel was likely given his name because David felt himself innocent in Nabal’s death and in the fact he had taken Nabal’s wife as his own. David noted as much when he said that Yahweh had pleaded his case in the death of Nabal (1 Sam. 25:39).
The Pulpit Commentary says:
The Midrash explains Chileab as meaning "Quite like the father." He is called Daniel in the parallel genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:1, and this was probably his real name, and Chileab a name of affection. He must have died young, for Adonijah appears as David's eldest son after the death of Amnon and Absalom; and it is thus natural that he should still be known by the name he bore as a child.

The Cambridge Bible says about "Chileab":
Called in Chron. Daniel, the meaning of which name, “God is my judge,” suggests that it may have been given him to commemorate God’s judgment upon Nabal (1 Samuel 25:39; cp. Genesis 30:6). Some suppose that he bore both names, but the Sept. reading here Daluiah (Δαλουΐα), and the identity of the last three letters of Chileab in the Hebrew with the first three of the following word, make it extremely probable that the text of Samuel is corrupt.
This refers to 1 Sam. 25, where David tells Abigail when she persuaded him not to kill Nabal,
"...blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand"...
And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said,
"Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head."
Gen. 30:6 has: "And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan."

When the Cambridge Bible refers to the last three letters of Chileab and the first three of the following word in 1 Sam. 3, it is referring to to phrase "כלאב לאביגל" (KLAB LABIGL / K'l'ab l'Abig'l), meaning "Chileab of Abigail". The letters לאב (lab) are the last three letters of Chileab in Hebrew and are the first three letters of the phrase "of Abigail."

Elicott's commentary theorizes:
Perhaps Daniel is a corruption of Delaiah, as this name recurs in the line of David. Chileab may have had a second name (comp. Uzziah-Azariah, Mattaniah-Zedekiah), especially as Chileab appears to be a nickname, meaning "dog." (Comp. the Latin Canidius, Caninius, as a family name.)
Elicott has in mind that 1 Chronicles 3:24 refers to a descendant of David named "Dalaiah." The LXX in 2 Sam. 3:3 has "Δαλουία" (Dalouia), which is a bit different than "Dalaiah."
The Pulpit Commentary notes about 1 Chron. 3:1: "It is remarkable that the Syriac and Arabic versions translate "Caleb," both here and in the parallel passage."

Read articles online for Daniel for 1 chron


Well-known member
The articles that I quoted above were practically all the information that I could find about Chileab/Daniel son of David online. The Dead Sea Scroll for 2 Sam. 3:3 has:
and his second, Chileab Dalujah, of Abigail the wife of Nabal[35] the Carmelite;

[35] This reading matches the LXX.
For reference, the LXX has "and his second Dalouia, by Abigaia the Carmelite..."

A special part of Daniel 6 is verse 22, when Daniel says,
אֱלָהִ֞י שְׁלַ֣ח מַלְאֲכֵ֗הּ וּֽסֲגַ֛ר פֻּ֥ם אַרְיָוָתָ֖א וְלָ֣א חַבְּל֑וּנִי כָּל־קֳבֵ֗ל דִּ֤י קָֽדָמֹ֙והִי֙ זָכוּ֙ הִשְׁתְּכַ֣חַת לִ֔י וְאַ֤ף [קָדָמַיִךְ כ] (קָֽדָמָךְ֙ ק) מַלְכָּ֔א חֲבוּלָ֖ה לָ֥א עַבְדֵֽת׃

Elahi shelah malakeh usagar pum aryawata wela habbeluni ...
My-God sent His-angel and-shut mouths lions' so-that-not they-have-hurt-me ...

My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me:
forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.


Well-known member
The NET website has Thomas Constable's notes about Daniel 7, which include:
(About v. 26:)
The angel continued to explain that the heavenly court (v. 10) would pass judgment on the little horn, and God will remove his dominion and destroy it forever (v. 11; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:20).

(About v. 27)
The fifth kingdom, under the Son of Man’s leadership (v. 14), will then commence. This fact argues for the normative dispensational interpretation that understands the kingdom of God on earth as beginning with Christ’s second coming rather than with His first coming (cf. 2:44).

Culver summarized the evidence for the premillennial understanding of chapter 7 as follows.

“(1) Messiah’s kingdom follows Antichrist’s appearance (here described in personal rather than institutional terms), and destruction. The person has not yet appeared. This appears to make post- and a-millennial schemes identifying the Church with the Kingdom unfeasible. (2) The kingdom of Messiah here follows the Gentile kingdoms; it is at no time contemporary with them. It must, therefore, be still future. (3) The kingdom of Christ succeeds a final form of Gentile dominion which has not yet appeared. (4) The Messianic kingdom is external in aspect here, not a kingdom in men’s hearts, as Church-Kingdom theology require. ..."
I am open minded about the fulfillment of the 5th kingdom's prophecy in Daniel 7. Constable interprets v. 27 to mean that God removes the Antichrist's dominion and then the fifth kingdom, Christ's begins. Constable compares this with the little stone knocking the iron and clay feet of the statue in Dan. 2. He concludes that this means that the kingdom of God on earth really begins at Christ's second coming, rather than His first coming or with the Church. His premise seems to be that the Antichrist did not come in the 1st century, but rather in the future, and therefore the fifth kingdom of Daniel 7 must come in the future too, unlike the Church.

However, I am skeptical about this reasoning, because I am open minded about the fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy, and because I can see the similarity between the Church and the fifth kingdom. For instance, in Revelation, the number of the beast is 666, apparently the gematria for Nero Caesar. So if the beast is Nero Caesar, then it follows that Christ's churchly kingdom could have started replacing pagan Rome's kingdom even while Christ was in heaven.

If we are going to treat Daniel 7 so chronologically literally as to demand that the fifth kingdom can't be the Church because the fullness of the Antichrist image and of Christ's personal return haven't come yet, then it would be inconsistent with our chronolofical interpretations other parts of Daniel 7. Specifically, each beast appears to Daniel one after the other, yet in real history, they existed simultaneously. Daniel 7 doesn't specify that Christ's kingdom didn't exist before the earlier beasts/kingdoms, but only that it replaced them. In fact, if we consider Christ to be a divine one "like the Son of Man" in Daniel 7, it makes sense to think that Christ pre-existed the AntiChrist.

So whereas Constable's theory is that Christ's and His kingdom's replacement of the Antichrist must mean that Christ's kingdom appeared after the arrival on earth of the Antichrist, in fact Daniel 7 isn't so specific that the fifth kingdom only existed after the earlier kingdoms.


A key part of Daniel 7 is verse 13, where Daniel writes:
חָזֵ֤ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑ה וְעַד־עַתִּ֤יק יֹֽומַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמֹ֖והִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃

Hazeh hawet behezwe lele-ya
Was-watching I in-visions night-the

wa-aru 'im 'anane shemay-ya
and behold with clouds of-heaven-the

ke-bar enash ateh
Like-a-Son of-Man came.

We-ad attiq yowmayya metah
And-to Ancient of-Days-the He came

Uqedamowhi haqrebuhi
And-before-Him they-brought-him-near.

“I was watching in the night visions,
And with the clouds of the sky,
one like a son of man was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


Well-known member
Constable's notes for the NET Bible say about Chapter 8, where the Greek goat rams into the Persian ram:
The ram was especially important for the Persians. The guardian spirit of the Persian Empire was portrayed as a ram. When the Persian king went into battle, he carried the head of a ram.[309] Also in the ancient world different zodiac signs represented various nations. Aries, the ram, stood for Persia, and Capricorn (Latin caper, goat, and cornu, horn) was Greece.
Constable comments on Dan 8:14:
The angel said that the desecration would last 2,300 evenings and mornings. Many commentators take this as meaning 2,300 days (i.e., six years, four months, and 20 days) since the Jews described a 24-hour day as evening and morning (Gen. 1:5-31).[336] Others believe it means a total of 2,300 evenings and mornings (1,150 of each), namely, 1,150 24-hour days (i.e., three years, two months, and 10 days). In this case “2,300 evenings and mornings” may mean 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices. This period then may describe the duration of the period when Antiochus did his worst to the temple and the Jews (167-164 B.C.).

Daniel 8:14 has a little problem in the KJV. The KJV has the angel say to Daniel abotu the time for the vision's events:
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The Hebrew runs:
ויאמר אלי עד ערב בקר אלפים ושלש מאות ונצדק קדש׃

Wa-yomer elay
And he said to me
ad ereb boqer 'alpayim ushelosh meowt
for evenings days two-thousand and-three hundred
wenitsdaq qodesh
then-shall-be-justified (or "made-righteous") sanctuary.
The term tsadeq or tsadoq in wenitsdaq is a "denominative verb from tsedeq", and means "to be just or righteous".

The NET Bible has:
He said to me, “To 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be put right again.”

Apparently, the KJV is interpreting the concept of mornings and evenings to be "days", and is interpreting the concept of rectifying or making right the temple to mean "cleansing" it. However, the passage more literally says mornings and days, and seemingly more precisely says rectifying/justifying/making-right.


Well-known member
Daniel 9:24-26 is an important, yet tricky passage. With the help of Biblehub's Interlinear Strong's tool, I found the 1979 ArtScroll Translation to be the most precise for v. 24, the NET translation to be the most precise for v. 25, and the KJV to be the most precise for v. 26. I am marking problematic parts of English translations in orange, with a ____ blank where there should be a word:

שבעים שבעים נחתך על עמך ועל עיר קדשך לכלא הפשע ולחתם חטאות ולכפר עון ולהביא צדק עלמים ולחתם חזון ונביא ולמשח קדש קדשים׃
ותדע ותשכל מן־מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד־משיח נגיד שבעים שבעה ושבעים ששים ושנים תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ ובצוק העתים׃
ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים יכרת משיח ואין לו והעיר והקדש ישחית עם נגיד הבא וקצו בשטף ועד קץ מלחמה נחרצת שממות׃

BibleHub Interlinear
24. Weeks (or "sevens") seventy are determined (lit. cut-off; metaph. decided/divided) for your people for city your holy to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin/sins [or probably "to seal up sin"], and to make reconciliation (or "covering/atonement") for iniquity (guilt), and to bring in righteousness everlasting, and to seal up vision and prophet (metaph. "prophecy"), and to anoint the "Holy of Holies" (Qodesh Qadashim in Hebrew; metaph. "Holy Most")
25. Therefore know and understand
from the going forth of word/command
to restore and build Jerusalem until messiah/anointed prince -
weeks/sevens seven
and weeks/sevens sixty and two
again and shall be built the street/plaza and the moat(or "wall"?) and in troublesome times.
26. And after the weeks/"sevens" 60 and 2 shall be cut off [a] messiah/Messiah, but not/nothing for himself,
and the city and the sanctuary shall destroy [or be destroyed by] [a] people of [a] prince who is to come,
and the end of it [will be ] with a flood and till the end of the war are determined desolations.

In v. 24, "transgression" ("pesha") comes from "pasha" in Hebrew, meaning rebellion. "Sin" here is ḥaṭ-ṭāṯ, and it could be a collective singular, as in a group of sins. "And to make reconciliation for iniquity" (u le kapper awon) means also "And to cover/atone for guilt/sin".
The NET footnote explains that in v. 25, "return and be built" is like saying that something will be built in a returning way, ie. "rebuilt".
In v. 26, the Hebrew for "but not for himself" is "wa-en lo", meaning something like "and/but not/nothing." Based on Strong's concordance, "who is to come" or "who comes" looks more precise than "that shall come." But otherwise the KJV looks precise.

ArtScroll (1979)
24. Seventy weeks have been decreed upon your people and your holy city to terminate ____ transgression, to end sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
25. And you should know and comprehend: From the emergence of the word to return and build Jerusalem until anointing the prince will be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, street and moat, but in troubled times.
26. And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and will be no more; the people of the prince who comes will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, but his end shall come like a flood. Until the end of a war, desolation is decreed!

ArtScroll Tanach 1996
24. Seventy septets have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to terminate ____ transgression, to end sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to confirm the visions and prophets, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

24. “Seventy weeks have been determined
concerning your people and your holy city
to put an end to rebellion,
to bring sin to completion,
to atone for iniquity,
to bring in perpetual righteousness,
to seal up the prophetic vision,
and to anoint a Most Holy Place.
25. So know and understand:
From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives,
there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
It will again be built, with plaza and moat,
but in distressful times.
26. Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
___ Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.

24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26. And after ___ threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The Lexham English Bible (LEB) has:
24. “Seventy weeks is decreed for your people and for your holy city, to put an end to the transgression and to seal up sin and to make atonement for guilt and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal vision and prophet and to anoint the most holy place.
25. And you must know and you must understand that from the time of the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed one—a leader—will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be restored and will be built with ____ streets and a moat, but in a time of oppression.
26. “And after the sixty and two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off, and he shall have nothing, and the people of the coming leader will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will be with the flood and on to the end there shall be war; these desolations are determined.

The LEB with its footnotes can be found here: