I, Daniel: the use of this formula once again serves as a discourse marker showing boundaries in the story. In this case it seems to mark the beginning of the conclusion to this section. Compare verses 1 and 15.

Was overcome: the translation of the Hebrew word here is much disputed, but the context seems to require something like “weak” (New American Bible), “faint” (An American Translation), “exhausted” (New International Version), “my strength failed” (Revised English Bible). New Jerusalem Bible “lost consciousness” goes back to verse 18, where a different word is used.

Rose: since the context clearly shows that recovery from an illness was involved, some languages may find it more natural to say something like “then I got well” or “my health improved.” The meaning is not that Daniel got up while he was still sick.

Went about the king’s business: since Daniel had obviously taken some time off from work when he received the vision, Good News Translation includes the idea that he “went back to work.” It also makes clear that Daniel did not actually replace the king in performing his duties, but simply returned to carrying out the job assigned to him by the king. These refinements may also be helpful in other languages.

Appalled: this seems to be a poor choice of words in English, although it is followed by New International Version, New American Bible, and Moffatt. The meaning is rather something like “disquieted” (An American Translation), “dismayed” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “perplexed” (New English Bible).

Did not understand it: literally “and there was no one understanding.” The two corresponding Hebrew words may be interpreted in three different ways: (1) “I (Daniel) did not understand it (the vision)” (Moffatt and the majority of English versions); (2) “No one could explain it (the vision)”; this is the solution followed by New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, and also by New International Version when it says “it was beyond understanding”; (3) “No one could understand (why the vision was to be kept secret or why I was so upset)”; this solution is apparently adopted by Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, which uses the masculine pronoun—such a pronoun in French cannot refer to the word “vision,” which is feminine. The first of these three possibilities is the most commonly accepted and the most likely to be the correct understanding of the text. It is unlikely that the text would focus on the inability of others to understand the vision or why it was to be kept secret, since at this point no one else knew about it.

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 .