Like the previous verse, this one is full of problems. Commentaries generally regard it as containing several glosses.
A holy one: most commentators agree that this is a reference to an angel, as in 4.13, and not to a member of the people of God (the Israelites).
Another holy one: some commentators maintain that the second holy one is the same as the first one, and that the unknown one that spoke represents Daniel himself. But this interpretation is very unlikely. In his vision the prophet overhears the conversation of two “holy ones” or two angels. The whole thing may be greatly simplified without altering the meaning if it is translated “I heard two angels conversing. And one of them asked.” In many languages it will be more natural to use the verb “ask,” since what follows is a question and in fact a rather long one. Note that Good News Translation breaks the question down into three more manageable parts and also makes their meaning clearer.
How long is the vision…?: the wording of the question in Revised Standard Version is misleading. The real question is not how long the actual vision will last but relates rather to the duration of the terrible events seen in the vision. This should be made clear in the translation, as in Good News Translation. It should also be noted that Good News Translation separates the complex question into three parts and repeats the keywords “how long” in each case. This may serve as a good model in many other languages that find the three-part question too complicated as presented in Revised Standard Version.
The continual burnt offering: this brief expression carries the whole idea of the suppression of the daily sacrifice referred to in the previous verse. In most languages it will probably be wise to fill it out according to the Good News Translation model.
Some manuscript evidence adds the qualifying phrase “… which is suppressed,” but this reading is not adopted by many modern English versions.
The transgression that makes desolate: although the wording is different, this seems to be the same as the “abominations” of “one who makes desolate” in 9.27.
The giving over: the Hebrew verb here is in the infinitive form and is not grammatically attached to anything. It brings to mind the verb used in verse 12 (“was given over”) and should probably be attached to the following noun (the sanctuary). In this context it may be legitimate to leave it implicit in translation, as has been done in numerous versions such as Good News Translation. But the idea is that God has temporarily abandoned the army of heaven and the Temple, allowing them to be overrun by those who oppose the practices of the Jewish religion. So some may say “How long will you (God) allow the heathen to trample…?”
The sanctuary: or, more precisely, the Temple, as in verse 11. Note that Good News Translation reverses the order of sanctuary and host.
Host: Good News Translation reverts to the meaning understood in verse 11 (“army of heaven”) rather than the idea of the pious worshipers in verse 12. But the latter seems more likely here.
An additional model for this verse as a whole is found in New Century Version:
• How long will the things in this vision last? The vision is about the daily sacrifices. It is about the turning away from God that brings destruction. It is about the Temple being pulled down. It is about the army of heaven being walked on.
Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .