A Few Observations on the Text of Daniel 11 and Current Adventist Interpretations1

Tarsee Li
Oakwood University

Abstract

It is assumed that the reader will have read the previous paper, which explains the
basis for the color-coded translation of Daniel 11. The present paper will go
through the text and make some observations concerning its implications for
current Adventist interpretations of the chapter.

Introduction

It is with much reluctance that I present this paper this morning. The reasons for my

reluctance are, first, that I have not come to a conclusion for my own interpretation, second,

which may be related to the first, I have not yet had a chance to read all the relevant literature on

the subject, and third, I cannot claim to be the ultimate authority on Hebrew. Nevertheless, since

I agreed to do the translation of the chapter, the Daniel 11 Committee also asked me to discuss

its implications for interpretation, and since I think that is a fair request, I am, therefore, obliging.

This paper assumes that you have read or listened to my previous paper that explains the basis of

the translation.2

Conrad Vine neatly summarized three major historicist approaches in the Adventist

interpretation of Daniel 11.3 These, of course, are not three interpretations, but three major

approaches, within which there may be some variations in interpretation. These approaches can

be listed as follows: 1) the (neo-)Uriah Smith approach, which follows closely the interpretation

of the said Adventist pioneer; 2) the Atheism approach, which identifies the king of the south as

1
Presented at the Daniel 11 Conference, Berrien Springs, MI, March 9, 2023.
2
Tarsee Li, "A Color-Coded Translation of Daniel 11:2b-12:3." Paper presented at the Daniel 11 Conference,
Berrien Springs, March 9, 2023.
3
"The Journey Thus Far," paper presented at the Daniel 11 Conference, October 20, 2021. I attended the
presentation but could not find a hard copy of it to cite.

Page 1 of 39
atheism; and 3) the Islam approach, which identifies the king of the south as Islam. In what

follows, I will not choose the correct approach. Nor do not intend to discuss every detail of each

interpretation. I am not qualified to do that. Instead, I will simply present a verse-by-verse

reading of the text along with a discussion of some of its implications.

Page 2 of 39
 The Text Verse-by-Verse with Some Brief Observations

In what follows is the text, along with some observations on a few of the issues relevant to the interpretation of the chapter.4

Daniel 11:2b-12:3 # de Regt rule

‫ֹלשׁה ְמלָ ִ֜כים עֹ ְמ ִ ֣דים ְלפָ ַ ֗רס‬
ָ ֨ ‫ ִהנֵּה־עוֹד ֩ ְשׁ‬Look, three more kings will arise to Persia. 1
‫יעי ֙ ַיע ֲִשׁ֤יר עֹֽ שֶׁ ר־גָּדוֹל ֙ ִמ ֹ֔כּל‬
ִ ‫ה ְר ִב‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ ו‬A fourth one will gain greater riches than all. 2
‫וּכחֶ זְ קָ ת֣ וֹ ְבעָ ְשׁ ֔רוֹ י ִָע֣יר הַ ֹ֔כּל ֵא֖ת מַ ְלכ֥ וּת יָוָ ֽ ן׃‬
ְ When he becomes strong with his riches, he will 3 ^ Rule 2: subj fourth king
arouse everyone against the king of Greece.
‫ וְ עָ ַמ֖ד ֶמ֣לֶ ְך גִּ בּ֑ וֹר‬3 A mighty king will arise. 4
‫ וּמָ שַׁ ל ֙ ִמ ְמ ָשׁ֣ל ַ ֔רב‬He will rule over a great dominion. 5 ^ Rule 2: subj mighty king
‫ וְ עָ ָשׂ֖ה ִכּ ְרצוֹנֽ וֹ׃‬He will do according to his will. 6 ^ Rule 2: subj mighty king
ֹ‫כוּתו‬
֔ ‫וּכעָ ְמדוֹ ֙ ִתּשָּׁ ֵב֣ר מַ ְל‬
ְ 4 When he has risen, his kingdom will be broken. 7
‫ וְ תֵ ֕ ָחץ ְלאַ ְר ַבּ֖ע רוּח֣ וֹת הַ שָּׁ ָמ֑יִ ם‬It will be divided to the four winds of heaven, 8 ^ Rule 2: subj (his kingdom)
ֹ‫יתו‬
֗ ‫ל ֹא ְלאַ ח ֲִר‬
֣ ְ‫ ו‬and it will not belong to his posterity, 9 ^ C-C Reg.
‫שׁל‬
ָ ֔ ָ‫ל ֹא ְכמָ ְשׁלוֹ ֙ א ֲֶשׁ֣ר מ‬
֤ ְ‫ ו‬nor be like his dominion that he ruled. 10 ^ C-C Reg.

4
The color coding applies to 11:5-45 (11:2-4 and 12:1-3 are assumed to be less ambiguous). The colors used in the color-coded translation are as follows:.
King of the north
King of the north or successor/descendant with another name
Anaphoric reference to the king of the north or successor
King of the south
King of the south or successor/descendant with another name
Anaphoric reference to the king of the south or successor
Prince of the covenant
The people of God
The wise
[Other colors used for other participants]
Ambiguous references are left uncolored

Page 3 of 39
 ֹ‫כוּתו‬
֔ ‫כּי ִתנָּתֵ שׁ ֙ מַ ְל‬
֤ ִ For his kingdom will be uprooted, 11
‫ד־אלֶּ ה׃‬
ֵֽ ַ‫ וְ לַ אֲחֵ ִ ֖רים ִמ ְלּב‬and it will belong to others besides these. 12 ^ C-C Reg.

Verses 2-4 do not need color-coding, since there is virtual agreement on the participants. Nevertheless, some brief comments

on v. 4 are appropriate here. First, according to Uriah Smith the directions of the compass "from the standpoint of Palestine" determine

who the kings of the north and south are. Therefore, Seleucus I was not originally the king of the north, but the king of the east.

Instead, Lysimachus was the original king of the north, and Seleucus became the king of the north only when he defeated

Lysimachus.5 However, the phrase ‫" אַ ְרבַּ ע רוּחוֹת הַ שָּׁ מַ יִ ם‬the four winds of heaven" is not necessarily restricted to the four directions

of the compass. A few other examples of this and similar expressions will suffice. In Zech 2:6 the expression "the four winds of

heaven" refers to all the nations from which the exiles were to flee when they return from "the land of the north." In Eze 7:2 a similar

expression, ‫" אַ ְרבַּ ע כַּ נְ פוֹת הָ אָ ֶרץ‬the four corners of the earth" (lit., "four wings"), refers only to the entirety of the "land of Israel."

But in Isa 11:12 that same expression refers to the various nations from which the captives would return, of which at least eight

different locations are mentioned in v. 11. As a side note, in the latter context the "west" referred to the Philistines and the "east" to

5
Uriah Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel (Battle Creek: Steam Press, 1873), 257-259.

Page 4 of 39
Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites (v. 14). In Matt 24:31 and Mark 13:27 the expression ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων "[from] the four

winds" is used to refer to the entire world, not just the four directions of the compass.6

Moreover, only two of the cardinal directions are mentioned specifically in Dan 11, the north and the south. Although the

directions of the compass are not always based on the perspective of the land Israel,7 when viewed from that perspective, north and

south may refer not to the location of foreign nations but to the direction from which they are perceived to come to the land of Israel.

Hence, although Babylon was east of Israel,8 it is depicted in the Bible as the enemy from the north (Jer 1:13-16; 46:10, 24).9 Also, the

people returning from the Babylonian captivity were depicted as returning from the land of the north even though they had been

scattered to the four winds of heaven (Zech 2:6). Similarly, the Lord stretches out his hand against the "north" when he destroys

Assyria, more specifically Nineveh (Zeph 2:13), even though the latter is not directly north of Israel. Likewise, since ancient Egypt

consisted originally of the shores of the Nile, none of it was directly south of Israel. It was mostly west and southwest of Israel.10 In

fact, the north end of the delta of the Nile is west of Jerusalem at almost the same degree of latitude. During the Ptolemaic era, the

6
In the years following Alexander's death, there were several generals who fought the wars of the diadochi. Names such as Antigonus, Antipater, Craterus,
Laomedon, and Perdiccas are often overlooked in the quest for only four generals. It was not until the battle of Ipsus in 301 BC that the divisions of Alexander's
empire were reduced to only four.
7
For example, in Daniel 8, the ram charged west, north, and south (v. 4), the goat came from the west (v. 5), and the little horn grew southward and eastward (v.
9) from the perspective of their point of origin, not from the perspective of the land of Israel, and their point of origin was in relation to the Ulai Canal where
Daniel stood in his vision (vv. 2-3).
8
Coincidentally, Seleucus I started out as the strap of Babylon!
9
In Jer 1:13-16 the enemy from the north includes not one kingdom but "kingdoms." The plural is appropriate because the Assyrians and Babylonians did not
fight alone but with the aid of their allies. For example, the Babylonians were joined by the Medes in their fight against Assyria, and the Assyrians received help
from Egypt when attacked by Babylon (such as in the battle where Josiah lost his life, 2 Kgs 23:29-30).
10
Towards its headwaters the Nile is more south than southwest, but that is not because it is south of Israel, but simply because it is very long in the north-south
direction.

Page 5 of 39
borders of Egypt stretched as far west as parts of Libya, reaching about the same degree of latitude as modern-day Haifa. Hence,

Egypt was not directly south of Israel, but the Egyptians could only invade Israel from the south. Therefore, north and south are used

in the Bible not only to refer to location, but also to the direction from which an invader comes, and the latter is just as literal as the

former. Hence, the kings of the north and south are not necessarily located north and south of Israel, but they invade the land of Israel

through those borders.

A second observation on v. 4 is that there is a plural anaphor whose referent is singular. The phrase ‫" ִמ ְלּבַ ד־אֵ לֶּ ה‬besides

these" in the last sentence contains a demonstrative anaphor, though in this instance de Regt's rules are not applicable because it does

not involve a subject or object. Although the anaphor is plural, the referent is singular, as suggested by a comparison between the two

possessive sentences above: "it will not belong to his posterity" and "it will belong to others besides these." Therefore, the anaphoric

plural demonstrative ‫" אֵ לֶּ ה‬these" is coreferential with a singular word ‫" אַ ח ֲִרית‬end" or "posterity." The apparent disagreement in

number may be ascribed to the collective sense of the word ‫ אַ ח ֲִרית‬when it denotes descendants.11

11
See also the word ‫" הַ חַ יִ ל‬the army" in v. 7, which is most likely the referent of the plural ‫" בָ הֵ ם‬against them" two sentences later. Though the word ‫ חַ יִ ל‬is
usually singular, its collective nature is seen in instances where it functions as a plural (Jer 52:8, 14). Another example of a collective word that occurs in this
chapter is ‫עַ ם‬, which is singular (‫ יִ מָּ לֵ ט עַ ְמָּך‬Dan 12:1) but can be treated as plural in some contexts (‫דּוּע אָ ְמרוּ עַ ִמּי‬
ַ ַ‫ ומ‬Jer 2:31) because of its collective sense.
The most telling example in this chapter occurs in Dan 11:32: ‫" עַ ם י ְֹדעֵ י אֱֹלהָ יו‬the people who know [plural] his [singular] God."

Page 6 of 39
 Jacques Doukhan argues that the word ‫ אַ ח ֲִרית‬in v. 4 does not denote "posterity" in the sense of direct descendants, but rather

to "what comes after him." Hence, the chapter skips the Seleucids and Ptolemies to other kingdoms after them.12 However, while it is

true that the other 4 instances of the word in Daniel denote the "future" or "end" (8:19, 23; 10:14; 12:8), the use of the word in other

contexts does not determine its meaning in this context. Further, in the other 4 instances the "future"/"end" is the focus of the

prophecy, not something skipped over to focus on what happens after that "future." On the other hand, Doukhan admits that the

"demonstrative 'these' refers to the kingdoms implied in the word" ‫אַ ח ֲִרית‬,13 resulting in an implied anaphoric relationship between

‫ אַ ח ֲִרית‬and ‫אֵ לֶּ ה‬.

‫ח ַז ֥ק ֶ ֽמלֶ ְך־הַ נֶּ ֖גֶב‬

ֱ ‫ וְ ֶי‬5 The king of the south will be strong. 13
֙ ‫ח ַז ֤ק עָ לָ יו‬
ֱ ‫וּמן־שָׂ ָר֑יו וְ ֶי‬ ִ And one of his leaders will prevail over him [textual 14 ^ Rule 2: obj king of south
variant]
‫רב מֶ ְמשַׁ ְל ֽתּוֹ׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫שׁל ִמ ְמ ָשׁ֥ל‬ ָ ֔ ָ‫ וּמ‬and will rule a greater dominion than his dominion. 15 ^ C-C Reg. (subj: prince)

The cantillation of the Masoretic Text (henceforth, MT) in 11:5 suggests that the expression ‫וּמן־שָׂ ָר֑יו‬
ִ "and one of his leaders"

belongs to the first sentence of the verse, but the Greek translations, both the Old Greek (henceforth, OG) and Theodotion (henceforth,

Theod), take it as part of the second sentence. The Latin Vulgate (henceforth, Vulg.) agrees with the Greek sentence division, but the

12
Jacques Doukhan, Daniel 11 Decoded: An Exegetical, Historical, and Theological Study (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2019), 79-80.
13
Daniel 11 Decoded, 80.

Page 7 of 39
Syriac Peshitta (henceforth, Syr.) follows the MT.14 If the MT is followed, both the subject and the object of the second sentence are

anaphoric, but if the Greek is followed, the second sentence has an explicit subject. Following the Greek versions results in a more

natural sentence break, though it requires emending the verb in the second sentence from ‫חזַק‬
ֱ ‫ וְ ֶי‬to ‫חזַק‬
ֱ ‫ְ ֶי‬. This in turn could easily be

ascribed to a scribal copying error influenced by the occurrence of ‫חזַק‬

ֱ ‫ וְ ֶי‬at the beginning of the verse. Hence, in this passage the

sentence division of the Greek translations has been adopted.15

‫וּל ֵ ֤קץ שָׁ נִ ים ֙ יִ ְתחַ ָ֔בּרוּ‬

ְ 6 At the end of some years they will form an alliance. 16 ^ n/a
‫ל־מ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֔פוֹן‬
ֶ ֶ‫וּב֣ת ֶ ֽמלֶ ְך־הַ ֗ ֶנּגֶב תָּ בוֹא ֙ א‬
ַ The daughter of the king of the south will come to 17
‫ לַ עֲשׂ֖ וֹת מֵ ישָׁ ִ ֑רים‬the king of the north to make an agreement.
‫וֹע‬
ַ ‫וֹח הַ זְּ ֗ר‬
ַ ֣‫ וְ ֽל ֹא־תַ ְע ֹ֞צר כּ‬But she will not retain the strength of arm. 18 ^ C-C Reg.
ֹ‫מד ֙ וּזְ ר ֹ֔עו‬
ֹ ‫ע‬
ֲ ‫ל ֹא ַי‬
֤ ְ‫ ו‬And his arm [seed?] will not stand. [textual variant] 19
‫יאיהָ ֙ וְ הַ ֹיּ ְ֣ל ָ ֔דהּ וּמַ חֲזִ ָ ֖קהּ‬
ֶ֨ ‫וּמ ִב‬
ְ ‫היא‬
֤ ִ ‫ָתן‬
ֵ ֨ ‫ וְ ִתנּ‬And she will be given up, along with the ones who 20 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ בָּ ִע ִ ֽתּים׃‬brought her and the one who fathered her and the
one who supported her in those times.

There is evidence that the MT of this verse contains several possible scribal errors, most of which cannot be easily resolved,

and which are beyond the scope of this discussion. One of the variants occurs in the next to last sentence above. According to the MT

14
Instances in the biblical Hebrew corpus of sentences beginning with ‫וּמן־‬ ִ + noun phrase acting as subject are rare, but this does not preclude ‫וּמן־שָׂ ָריו‬
ִ from
being the subject at the beginning of a clause (cf. ‫ילים‬
ִ ‫וּמן־הַ מַּ ְשׂ ִכּ‬
ִ in 11:35).
15
Either way, most interpreters understand the phrase as referring to Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's generals who for a time served under Ptolemy I Soter
in Egypt.

Page 8 of 39
the sentence has an anaphoric subject, "he will not stand," along with an additional specified subject ֹ‫" וּזְ רֹעו‬and his arm." There is,

however, a variant in a couple Hebrew manuscripts where the word ֹ‫" זְ רֹעו‬his arm" occurs without the conjunction, which makes it the

specified subject of the sentence. This appears to be followed by OG, Theod, and Vulg.16 It has therefore been adopted in this study.

Also, Theod translates the word as τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ "his seed," which suggests a different vowelling of the Hebrew as ֹ‫ז ְַרעו‬, "his

seed" rather than "his arm," but that is not conclusive.

ֹ‫ וְ עָ ַמ֛ד ִמנֵּ ֥צֶ ר שָׁ ָר ֶשׁ֖יהָ כַּ נּ֑ו‬7 A sprout of her roots will arise in his place. 21
‫ָב ֹא אֶ ל־הַ ֗ ַחיִ ל‬
֣ ‫ וְ י‬He will come to the army, 22 ^ Rule 2: subj sprout
‫ וְ יָבֹא ֙ ְבּמָ עוֹז ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֔פוֹן‬and enter the fortress of the king of the north, 23 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ עָ ָשׂ֥ה בָ ֶה֖ם‬and take action against them, 24 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ הֶ חֱזִ ֽיק׃‬and conquer. 25 ^ C-C Reg.
‫לי‬ ֵ ֨ ‫ם־כּ‬
ְ ‫יהם ִעם־נְ ִ ֽסכֵ יהֶ ם ֩ ִע‬ ֶ ֡ ֵ‫ וְ גַ ֣ם אֱֹֽלה‬8 Also, their gods with their cast images with their 26 ^ Rule 2: subj sprout
‫ חֶ ְמ ָדּ ֜ ָתם ֶכּ֧סֶ ף וְ ז ָָה֛ב בַּ ְשּׁ ִ ֖בי י ִָב֣א ִמ ְצ ָר֑יִ ם‬precious utensils, silver and gold he will bring into
captivity to Egypt.
‫ע ֹ֔מד ִמ ֶמּ֖לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֽפוֹן׃‬
ֲ ‫ וְ הוּא ֙ שָׁ ִנ ֣ים ַי‬As for him, for some years he will stay away from 27 ^ Rule 2: subj sprout
the king of the north.
‫וּבא ְבּמַ ְלכוּת ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֔ ֶנּגֶב‬
ָ֗ 9 Then he will come against the kingdom of the king 28 ^ Rule 1: subj king of north
of the south,
‫ וְ ָשׁ֖ב אֶ ל־אַ ְדמָ ֽתוֹ׃‬and will return to his own land. 29 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וּבָ נָ ֣ו יִ ְתגּ ָ֗רוּ‬10 His sons will be stirred up 30

16
The Syriac Peshitta follows mostly the MT, but not in this sentence, where it has instead ‫ܐ ܕܬܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ "from the fear that she will fear."

Page 9 of 39
 ‫חי ִָל֣ים ַר ִ֔בּים‬
ֲ ֙ ‫ וְ אָ ְספוּ ֙ הֲמוֹן‬and gather a multitude of great forces. 31 ^ C-C Reg.
‫וּב֥א ב֖ וֹא‬
ָ He will certainly come 32 ^ Rule 2: subj king of north
‫ וְ שָׁ ַט ֣ף‬and overflow 33 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ עָ ָב֑ר‬and cross over. 34 ^ C-C Reg.
‫שׁב‬
ֹ ֥ ‫ וְ ָי‬And again 35 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ָרו עַ ד־מָ עֻ ֹֽזּה׃‬
֖ ֶ ‫ וְ יִ ְתגּ‬he will fight as far as his fortress. 36 ^ C-C Reg.

The MT of v. 10 above switches from the plural in the first two sentences of the verse to the singular in the following

sentences. The fact that the MT is problematic is reflected in the Ketiv/Qere variations. There is a Ketiv/Qere variant in the first word

of the verse (Ketiv singular ‫" ובנו‬and his son" and Qere plural ‫" וּבָ נָיו‬and his sons") and another one in the last sentence of the verse

(Ketiv plural ‫" ויתגרו‬and they will fight" and Qere singular ‫" וְ יִ ְתגּ ֶָרה‬and he will fight"). The Ketiv singular in the first word is

supported by OG, while the Qere plural is supported by Theod, which, however, omits the translation of the next word ‫" יִ ְתגָּרוּ‬will be

stirred up." The Syr. also has a plural, but, unlike the MT or Theod, it continues with the plural throughout the verse. In spite of the

problems in the MT, this translation provisionally follows it due to the lack of other witnesses supporting the OG.17 As for the singular

‫" וּבָ א‬he will come" in the third sentence of v. 10, de Regt's rule two suggests that the referent is the king of the north (v. 8), who

17
Most commentaries follow the Qere and understand the sons to be the two sons of Seleucus II, i.e., Seleucus III and Antiochus III, in which case the puzzling
switch from a plural subject to a singular subject is explained by the fact that Seleucus III died soon after coming to the throne and was followed by Antiochus
III. It would be more natural for the verse to begin with the singular, in which case and the entire verse refers to the same ruler (that is, the short reign of Seleucus
III is passed over in the account, which moves straight to Antiochus III).

Page 10 of 39
comes into the south and returns to his own land in v. 9. However, since "his sons" are mentioned at the beginning of v. 10, one must

conclude that the anaphoric "he" expressed in the 3ms verb ‫ וּבָ א‬refers not to the same person as the king of the north of v. 8, but to a

successor, who is, therefore, also a "king of the north."

‫ וְ יִ ְתמַ ְרמַ ר ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֔ ֶנּגֶב‬11 The king of the south will be furious. 37
‫ָצא‬
ָ ֕ ‫ וְ י‬He will go out 38 ^ Rule 2: subj king of south
‫ם־מ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ פ֑ וֹן‬
ֶ ‫ וְ נִ ְל ַח֥ם ִעמּ֖ וֹ ִע‬and wage war with him, with the king of the north. 39 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ הֶ ע ֱִמיד ֙ הָ מ֣ וֹן ָ ֔רב‬He will raise up a great multitude. 40 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫תּן הֶ הָ מ֖ וֹן ְבּי ָֽדוֹ׃‬
֥ ַ ִ‫ וְ נ‬The multitude will be placed in his hand, 41
‫ וְ נִ ָשּׂ֥א הֶ הָ מ֖ וֹן‬12 the multitude being lofty, 42
ֹ‫ יְ ָר֣ום ְלבָ ב֑ ו‬and his heart lifted up. 43
‫ וְ ִה ִ ֛פּיל ִרבֹּא֖ וֹת‬He will bring down myriads, 44 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ל ֹא י ָֽעוֹז׃‬
֥ ְ‫ ו‬but he will not prevail. 45 ^ C-C Reg.

There is a cluster of textual variants in vv. 11-12 that have a complicated effect on the translation and the application of de

Regt's rules. See Appendix B of the previous paper for a more detailed discussion. The MT has been followed here, but due to the

application of the rules, the translation departs from that found in most modern translations. The following comparison illustrates the

difference:

Page 11 of 39
 MT NKJV Adopted Translation
‫ וְ יִ ְתמַ ְרמַ ר ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֔ ֶנּגֶב‬11 And the king of the South shall be The king of the south will be
moved with rage, furious.
‫ָצא‬ ָ ֕ ‫ וְ י‬and go out He will go out
‫ם־מ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ פ֑ וֹן‬
ֶ ‫ וְ נִ ְל ַח֥ם ִעמּ֖ וֹ ִע‬and fight with him, with the king of and wage war with him, with
the North, the king of the north.
‫ וְ הֶ ע ֱִמיד ֙ הָ מ֣ וֹן ָ ֔רב‬who shall muster a great multitude; He will raise up a great
multitude.
‫תּן הֶ הָ מ֖ וֹן ְבּי ָֽדוֹ׃‬ ֥ ַ ִ‫ וְ נ‬but the multitude shall be given into The multitude will be placed in
the hand of his enemy. his hand,
12
‫ וְ נִ ָשּׂ֥א הֶ הָ מ֖ וֹן‬12 When he has taken away the the multitude being lofty,
multitude,
ֹ‫ יְ ָר֣ום ְלבָ ב֑ ו‬his heart will be lifted up; and his heart lifted up.
‫ וְ ִה ִ ֛פּיל ִרבֹּא֖ וֹת‬and he will cast down tens of He will bring down myriads,
thousands,
‫ל ֹא י ָֽעוֹז׃‬
֥ ְ‫ ו‬but he will not prevail. but he will not prevail.

The translation of the NKJV in the middle column above is given as an example of the typical interpretation of the passage (partially

color-coded for clarification). According to the typical interpretation of the passage, as reflected in the NKJV, the king of the north

raises a great multitude, which, in the next clause, is defeated by the king of the south. Then, the following sentence mentions the

taking away of the multitude. However, if the multitude is that of the king of the north, the alternating referents of the anaphors can

only be inferred from the context. Therefore, in order to make the anaphoric references clear, the NKJV resorts to translating

independent clauses as subordinate clauses and changing one passive verb into an active verb ("who shall muster ..." v. 11, "when he

has taken away ..." v. 12), as well as adding words for clarification ("of his enemy" v. 11). Further, there is also a lack of chronological

Page 12 of 39
sequence here, since the defeat of the multitude, the taking away of the multitude, and the casting down tens of thousands all refer to

the same event.

In contrast to the typical interpretation, the column on the right side above presents the translation adopted here, which is based

on de Regt's rules. The fourth sentence in v. 11 begins with the verb ‫" וְ הֶ ע ֱִמיד‬he will raise up," which has an anaphoric subject

expressed by its 3ms morphological form. The preceding sentence contains an anaphoric subject expressed by the 3ms morphology of

the verb ‫" וְ נִ ְלחַ ם‬he will wage war" as well as a prepositional phrase ‫ ִעם‬+ a pronominal suffix followed by another prepositional

phrase consisting of ‫ ִעם‬+ the king of the north. Since the preposition ‫" ִעם‬with" expresses accompaniment, the prepositional phrase is

"not an object complement."18 Therefore, the king of the north is not a sentence object or object complement, and the sentence can be

analyzed as having no object. As a result, rule two indicates that the 3ms subject of the preceding sentence is coreferential with the

3ms subject of the current sentence. That is, it is the king of the south, the one who wages war with the king of the north, who raises

18
See Lénart J. de Regt, "Anaphoric Accessibility in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Global and Local Participant Tracking across Clause Boundaries," in Ancient
Texts and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, ed. Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and John A. Messarra
(Leiden: Brill, 2019), 76. For other examples of this use of ‫עם‬,
ִ see Gen 32:25, 26, 29; Exod 17:8; etc. In addition to this instance there are a few other instances
in this chapter where a preposition of accompaniment expresses the sense of hostility ("against"): ֹ‫( ִעמּו‬v. 40), ‫( אֵ ת‬v. 2), and the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬in some
expressions, including –‫( עשׂה בּ‬v. 7), some instances of –‫( בוא בּ‬vv. 9, 30, cf. ‫ ְבּמַ ְלכוּת‬in v. 9 and ‫ אֵ ת מַ ְלכוּת‬in v. 2), and possibly also –‫( שׁלח יָד בּ‬v. 42,
though the latter does not express accompaniment, cf. 1 Sam 11:3; Prov 31:19). According to HALOT ‫ ְבּ‬I, meaning 12, "‫ ְבּ‬expresses the sharing of an act: a)
(together) with ... ; b) hostile against."

Page 13 of 39
the great multitude.19 The next sentence, the fifth sentence, contains the expression ‫" נתן ְבּיַד‬to place in the hand of." Although this

expression often denotes defeat at the hand of enemies, the meaning of placing something under one's charge or authority also fits the

context if it is the king of the south who raises this multitude.20 The next sentence, the first sentence in v. 12, begins with the verb

‫וְ נִ שָּׂ א‬, which is usually also interpreted as indicating the military defeat of the multitude ("taken away" or "carried off," etc.), hence

repeating the sense of the previous sentence. However, this sentence may instead be parallel to the following sentence rather than the

previous one, in which case the forms ‫ וְ נִ שָּׂ א‬and ‫( וְ ָרם‬Qere) may be analyzed as participles. The verbs ‫" נשׂא‬to lift up" and ‫" רום‬to be

high" are sometimes used as synonyms in the same context expressing either exaltation (e.g., Isa 6:1; 52:13; 57:15) or pride (e.g., Isa

2:12-14). Therefore, in this context it is possible that both the multitude and the heart of the king of the south are lifted up in the sense

of being proud.21 Thus, the application of de Regt's rules results in a greater consistency in the anaphoric references with the king of

the south globally active in vv. 11-12. It is also more chronologically coherent in that the king of the south builds up his army in v. 11,

but does not defeat the king of the north until v. 12 when he brings down myriads.

19
Daniel 11:11 is generally interpreted as a reference to the battle of Raphia in 217 BC. The fact that Ptolemy IV had a larger army at Raphia than Antiochus III
would support the view that the large multitude was that of the king of the south. Nevertheless, the alternative suggested here is independent of its historical
application.
20
Though the idea of defeat is an appropriate meaning in military contexts (e.g., Lev 26:25; 2 Kgs 18:30; Jer 32:24; Dan 1:1), this meaning is probably an
extension of the more basic meaning of this expression, which is handing something or someone over to the power of another (e.g., Job 9:24; Jer 34:3; 39:17).
Accordingly, the expression can also denote placing something in or entrusting something to the charge or authority of someone (active in the Qal stem, e.g., Gen
30:35; 39:4, and passive in the Niphal stem, e.g., Gen 9:2; 2 Chron 34:16).
21
This view is reflected in some older translations, such as the 1599 Geneva Bible "Then the multitude shall be proud, and their heart shall be lifted up," the 1602
Reina-Valera "Y la multitud se ensoberbecerá, elevaráse su corazón," and the 1910 Louis Segond translation "Cette multitude sera fière, et le coeur du roi
s'enflera."

Page 14 of 39
 ‫ וְ שָׁ ב ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֔פוֹן‬13 Then the king of the north will return 46
‫רב ִמן־הָ ִראשׁ֑ וֹן‬
֖ ַ ‫ וְ הֶ ע ֱִמ֣יד הָ ֔מוֹן‬and raise up a multitude greater than the first. 47 ^ C-C Reg. king of north
‫תּים שָׁ נִ ים ֙ יָ ֣בוֹא ֔בוֹא ְבּ ַח֥יִ ל‬ ֤ ִ ‫ה ִע‬ֽ ָ ‫וּל ֵ֨קץ‬ ְ He will certainly come at the end of some years with 48 ^ C-C Reg.
‫וּב ְרכ֥ וּשׁ ָ ֽרב׃‬ ִ ‫גּ ָ֖דוֹל‬ a great army and much equipment.
‫ל־מ֣לֶ ְך‬
ֶ ַ‫ וּבָ ִע ִתּ֣ים הָ ֔ ֵהם ַר ִ ֥בּים יַ ֽעַ ְמ ֖דוּ ע‬14 In those times many will stand up against the king of 49
‫הַ נֶּ ֑גֶב‬ the south.
‫ֲמיד חָ ז֖וֹן‬ ֥ ִ ‫ַשּׂא֛ וּ ְלהַ ע‬
ְ ‫יצ֣י עַ ְמּ ָ֗ך ִ ֽינּ‬ֵ ‫וּבנֵ ֣י׀ פָּ ִר‬ ְ The violent ones of your people will rise up to 50
confirm the vision.
‫שׁלוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ וְ נִ ְכ‬But they will stumble. 51 ^ Rule 2: subj violent ones

The first two sentences of v. 14 have specified participants, and, therefore, de Regt's rules do not apply. The Hebrew phrase

‫וּבנֵי פָּ ִריצֵ י עַ ְמָּך‬

ְ (literally, "the sons of the violent ones of your people") can be variously interpreted. The word ‫ פָּ ִריץ‬comes from the

root ‫" פרץ‬to make a breach," "to burst open," or "to break down." The word generally means a "violent person" (Eze 18:10). The

phrase is a Hebrew construct chain, whose last word functions like a genitive. The last word "of your people" can be understood as an

objective genitive, i.e., the people are the object of the violence ("the ones violent to your people"), or as a partitive genitive, i.e., the

violent ones are part of the people ("the violent ones among your people"). A similar instance of a partitive construction occurs in v.

33 ‫" וּמַ ְשׂ ִכּ֣ילֵ י ֔ ָעם‬the wise among the people." A number of Adventist interpreters, including Uriah Smith and Louis Were, have

Page 15 of 39
understood the phrase "robbers of thy people" in the sense of an objective genitive and applied it to the Romans.22 As it stands, the

Hebrew text allows for both types of genitive interpretations, and in either case it is the same group that will "stumble" in the next

sentence.

‫ וְ יָבֹא ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֔פוֹן‬15 The king of the north will come 52

‫ֲלה‬
ָ ֔ ‫פְּך ֙ ֽסוֹל‬
ֹ ‫ וְ יִ ְשׁ‬and lay siege mounds 53 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ לָ ַכ֖ד ִע֣יר ִמ ְבצָ ֑רוֹת‬and capture a fortified city. 54 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ע ֹ֔מדוּ וְ עַ ם ֙ ִמ ְבחָ ָ ֔ריו‬
ֲ ‫ל ֹא ַי‬
֣ ֙ ‫ וּזְ רֹע֤ וֹת הַ ֨ ֶנּ ֶגב‬The arms of the south will not stand, nor his choice 55
troops.
‫ע ֹֽמד׃‬
ֲ ַ‫כּ ַח ל‬
ֹ ֖ ‫ וְ ֵא֥ין‬There will be no strength to stand. 56
ֹ‫ וְ ַי֨עַ שׂ הַ ָבּ֤א אֵ לָ יו ֙ ִכּ ְרצוֹנ֔ו‬16 The one who comes to him will do according to his 57
will,
‫עוֹמ֖ד ְלפָ נָ ֑יו‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ֵא֥ין‬without anyone standing before him. 58 ^ Rule 2: obj the one who comes
(king of north)
‫מד ְבּ ֶ ֽא ֶרץ־הַ ְצּ ִ ֖בי‬
ֹ֥ ‫ע‬
ֲ ‫ וְ ַי‬He will stand in the beautiful land, 59 ^ Rule 1: subj "him" (king of north)
‫ וְ כָ ָל֥ה ְבי ָֽדוֹ׃‬with annihilation in his hand. 60

There is a stretch of verses between v. 15 and v. 40, where the designation "king of the north" does not occur. However, that

does not mean that the king of the north ceases to be in the narrative in vv. 16-39. As explained in my earlier paper, major global

22
Smith, Thoughts, 267-270; Louis F. Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem: God's People Delivered (St. Maries, ID: LMN Publishing International, 2002),
41, 89, 117.

Page 16 of 39
participants are more often referenced anaphorically than by name. Since the king of the north is a major global participant, it is

expected that he would be mentioned anaphorically. In fact, other than at paragraph or segment boundaries, participants are not

expected to be mentioned by name or designation. Hence, it is not the absence of the expression "king of the north" in vv. 16-39 that is

significant, but its unnecessary repetition that would be significant for interpretation.

There are a couple items that deserve discussion in v. 16. First, the expression "the one who comes to him" is a participial

clause functioning as the subject of the sentence. Since the expression functions as a specified subject, de Regt's rules are not

applicable here. Also, the fact that the participant is specified could potentially indicate a new paragraph, though there may be other

reasons for the specification. However, the identity of the participant referred to is not affected by a transition. Smith interprets it as

the Romans.23 The fact that it has an article suggests that it is someone previously mentioned in the narrative. Further, the expression

does not narrate the participant's coming, but implies that the reader already knows that he is coming. Thus, although the participial

clause functions as a specified subject, the definite article within that expression has an anaphoric function in this context, and the

most likely referent is in v. 15, which states that the king of the north "will come."24

Second, there is a textual variant in the last sentence of v. 16 that does not change the sentence divisions or the identity of the

participants, but it cannot be passed over without a comment. As it stands in the MT it is best understood as a nominal sentence with

23
Smith, Thoughts, 272-274.
24
Since Smith sees the Romans as introduced in v. 14, his interpretation agrees that the participant was mentioned earlier in the narrative. However, the subject in
v. 14 is plural. Further, it is unlikely that a reader would see the group in v. 14 as an antecedent to "the one who comes" in v. 16, since the narrative does not
describe them as coming before v. 16.

Page 17 of 39
the noun ‫" וְ כָ לָ ה‬complete end" (i.e., "destruction" or "annihilation") as the subject. However, the ancient versions translate the clause

with passive verbs (for more details, see Appendix B in my previous paper). The OG is unique in that it adds a word "all will be

brought to an end," which translates a combination of ‫" כֹּל‬all" and the verb ‫" כלה‬to come to an end," suggesting that the translator of

the OG may have conflated different understandings of the MT text. Other than OG, the translations assume that the referent is the

beautiful land, which is feminine in Hebrew as well as in each of the respective languages. The Hebrew ‫ וְ כָ לָ ה‬could also be analyzed

as a Qal 3ms verb "it will come to an end," but that is masculine not feminine, and there is no masculine singular referent for the

anaphor. Alternatively, some prefer to emend the Hebrew text to ‫" וְ כֻ לָּ הּ‬and all of it [will be in his hand]," which is reflected in

several modern translations. However, this emendation lacks textual support. Therefore, although there is textual evidence to suggest

that the MT may need to be corrected, the evidence does not yield a clear alternative, and the MT reading is coherent.

ֹ‫תקֶ ף כָּ ל־מַ ְלכוּת֛ ו‬

ֹ ֧ ‫ וְ י ֵָשׂ֣ם׀ ֠פָּ נָיו לָ ֞בוֹא ְבּ‬17 He will set his face to come with the strength of his 61 ^ Rule 2: subj
entire kingdom.
‫ וִ ישָׁ ִ ֥רים ִעמּ֖ וֹ וְ עָ ָשׂ֑ה‬He will form alliances with him, [textual variant] 62 ^ Rule 2: subj the one who sets his
face (king of north)
‫יתהּ‬
ָ ֔ ‫ָשׁים ֙ יִ תֶּ ן־ל֣ וֹ ְלהַ ְשׁ ִח‬ִ ‫וּב֤ת הַ נּ‬ַ and give him the daughter of women to destroy him. 63 ^ C-C Reg.
[textual variant]
‫מד‬ֹ֖ ‫ע‬ֲ ַ‫ל ֹא ת‬
֥ ְ‫ו‬ But she will not stand 64 ^ Rule 1: subj "daughter"
‫ וְ ל ֹא־ל֥ וֹ ִת ְהיֶ ֽה׃‬nor be for him. 65 ^ C-C Reg.

Page 18 of 39
 There are two significant textual variants in v. 17. I will only mention them briefly here. For more details, I direct you to

Appendix B of my previous paper. The second sentence of the verse in the MT literally reads, "And equitable things are with him.

And he will do." That is, the first two words form a nominal sentence functioning as a circumstantial clause to the previous sentence,

while the verb at the end forms a new sentence. However, the ancient translations, OG, Theod, the Vulg., and the Syr., translate these

words as a single sentence. These translations also require correcting the verb ‫" וְ עָ שָׂ ה‬and he will do" to ‫" ַיעֲשֶׂ ה‬he will do," which is

plausible, since confusing the letters ‫ ו‬and ‫ י‬was not a rare scribal mistake, and there is at least one Hebrew manuscript with ‫ ַיעֲשֶׂ ה‬.

The next significant textual variant in v. 17 concerns the last word in the third sentence, ‫להַ ְשׁ ִחיתָ הּ‬,
ְ which consists of a one-

word subordinate clause with a 3fs pronominal suffix "her/it." There is some ambiguity concerning the referent of the suffix, an

ambiguity reflected in the variants in the ancient translations. The simplest solution is found in the fact that the suffix is written as a

3ms suffix in a Qumran manuscript ‫להשחיתו‬

̇ "to destroy him" (4Q Danc), in which case the referent is the king of the south. The

masculine suffix is supported by the OG and the Syr.25 Since the Hebrew 3ms suffix is sometimes written with the letter ‫ ה‬instead of

‫ו‬,26 the differences could simply reflect different interpretations of the suffix in an unvowelled text. This is further supported by the

25
Theod has a feminine pronoun and the Vulg. a neuter one.
26
For a discussion of the phenomenon, see Ian Young, "Observations on the Third Person Masculine Pronominal Suffix -H in Hebrew Biblical Texts," Hebrew
Studies 42 (2001): 225-242.

Page 19 of 39
alternation of ‫ ה‬and ‫ ו‬in the Ketiv-Qere variant in 11:10 (Ketiv ‫מעזה‬, Qere ֹ‫)מָ עֻ זּו‬. It should be mentioned here that the possibility

remains for interpretations that follow the MT vocalization as a 3fs suffix.27

In addition to the textual variants, there is also the curious expression ‫ָשׁים‬
ִ ‫" וּבַ ת הַ נּ‬the daughter of women," which can be

variously interpreted. It consists of a Hebrew construct relationship that can be descriptive (a feminine daughter) or partitive (a

daughter among women), both of which give the sense of a special daughter. Alternatively, the word ‫" בַּ ת‬daughter" can denote a

member of a group, just as its masculine counterpart ‫" בֵּ ן‬son" ("sons of Israel" = "Israelites"). In our passage, the expression occurs as

"sons of violent ones" (= "violent ones," Dan 11:14), "sons of Ammon" ("Ammonites," 11:41), and "sons of your people" (= "your

people," 12:1). Thus the "daughter of women" may simply mean a member of the female gender, that is, "a woman."

In passing, I should briefly discuss the last two sentences in v. 17, which contain unspecified 3fs subjects expressed by the

morphology of their respective verbs, ‫עמֹד‬

ֲ ַ‫" ת‬she will [not] stand" and ‫" ִת ְהיֶה‬she will [not] be." English translations are divided on

their interpretation of the referent of the unspecified feminine subjects. Some translations render the subject as "she" (e.g., CSB, KJV,

NKJV, NASB). These translations interpret the unspecified subjects as anaphoric references to the "daughter of women" in the

previous sentence. Others supply the word "plan" as the subject (GNT, NCV, NIV, NLT). Since the word for "plan" does not occur in

the context, these translations interpret the unspecified subjects not as anaphoric but as exophoric. That is, they refer to a participant

27
In a personal communication, Frank Hardy expressed his preference for retaining the 3fs suffix as in the MT.

Page 20 of 39
outside the text. Still others render the subject with an ambiguous "it" (CEB, ESV, RSV, NRSV). The "it" subject may either express

an unspecified reference to the "plan," in which case the unspecified subject is interpreted as exophoric, or it may express an English

dummy subject or placeholder, in which case the Hebrew verb is interpreted as subjectless. Of these interpretations, the exophoric one

is the least likely, since the presence of a specified feminine participant in the immediate context makes it doubtful that a different

feminine subject would remain unspecified.28 Similarly, it would also be unusual for a 3fs verb to be subjectless when a feminine

participant is specified in the immediate context. The fact that the gender and number of the subject of the last two sentences matches

the object of the preceding sentence suggests that de Regt's rule one is applicable. Hence, the object of the third to last sentence, the

"daughter of women," is coreferential with the subject of the next sentence, "she will [not] stand," which, in turn, is coreferential with

the subject of the last sentence, "she will [not] be."

‫ וְ י ֵָשׁ֧ב׀ פָּ נָ ֛יו ְל ִא ִיּ֖ים‬18 He will set his face to the coastlands [Ketiv: He will 66 ^ Rule 1: subj "him" (king of north)
turn back his face]
‫ וְ לָ ַכ ֣ד ַר ִבּ֑ים‬and capture many. 67 ^ C-C Reg.
ֹ‫צין חֶ ְרפָּ תוֹ ֙ ֔לו‬
֤ ִ ָ‫ וְ ִה ְשׁ ִ֨בּית ק‬But a commander will put a stop to his taunt. 68
‫ָשׁיב ֽלוֹ׃‬
֥ ִ ‫ ִבּ ְל ִ ֥תּי חֶ ְרפָּ ת֖ וֹ י‬Rather, he will turn back his taunt on him. 69 ^ C-C Reg.

28
There is a word for "plan" ‫ מַ חֲשָׁ בָ ה‬that occurs in vv. 24 and 25, but it does not occur in the immediate context of v. 17. The fact that the word occurs
elsewhere makes it likely that the author would have used it in v. 17 if that had been meant.

Page 21 of 39
 In 11:18 the last word of the next to last sentence and the first word of the last sentence ‫" לוֹ ִבּ ְל ִתּי‬to him, but not" are

somewhat enigmatic, but, if they reflect any type of textual corruption, the other textual witnesses do not help to resolve the puzzle.

The word ‫ ִבּ ְל ִתּי‬is a negative adverb that often implies a contrast. However, in the above passage, it seems to have a rare function, and

there is no consensus concerning its exact meaning. The word generally occurs at the beginning of a subordinate clause, but since it

does not always introduce a clause,29 it is not clear whether the subordinating function is inherent in this word or expressed by other

clause constituents. In most instances, it is combined with a preposition (95 out of 112, and most often ‫ ) ְל ִב ְל ִתּי‬or follows a word in

the construct state (2 instances, 1 Sam 2:2; Isa 14:6).30 Of the remaining 15 instances, 11 occur in verbless expressions.31 Thus, the

instance in Dan 11:18 is one of only 4 instances not combined with a preposition that introduce a verbal clause. In the other 3

instances, it means "unless" or "except" (Isa 10:4; Amos 3:3, 4), but that meaning does not fit the context in Dan 11:18. My personal

preference would be to emend ‫ לוֹ ִבּ ְל ִתּי‬to ‫ ְל ִב ְל ִתּי‬and translate the two clauses as, "A commander will put a stop to his taunt, without

returning his taunt on him." Thereafter, the discourse would continue with the globally active king of the north as the subject

(according to rule two). The emendation could be explained as a scribal error due to the occurrence of ֹ‫ לו‬at the end of the verse.

29
It introduces a phrase rather than a clause in Gen 21:26; 47:18; Exod 22:19 [English v. 20]; Num 11:6; 32:12; Josh 11:19; Judg 7:14; 1 Sam 2:2; Isa 14:6; Eze
16:28; Hos 13:4. In 1 Sam 2:2 and Hos 13:4 the phrase consists of a negation and ‫ ִבּ ְל ִתּי‬with a pronominal suffix.
30
In most of these instances it introduces a clause with an infinitive construct (82 out of 112).
31
Though most of these consist of phrases, some are nominal clauses (Gen 43:3,5; 1 Sam 20:26). Moreover, the 2 instances that occur after a word in the
construct also occur in nominal phrases (1 Sam 2:2; Isa 14:6). By contrast, only 1 prepositional instance occurs in a nominal phrase (Eze 16:28).

Page 22 of 39
However, since there is no textual support for this emendation, the present translation retains the MT reading. For a discussion of the

textual variants, see Appendix B in my earlier paper.

ֹ‫ וְ י ֵָשׁ֣ב פָּ ָנ֔יו ְלמָ עוּזֵּ ֖י אַ ְרצ֑ ו‬19 He will then turn his face back to the fortresses of 70 ^ Rule 1: subj "him" (king of north)
his own land.
‫ וְ נִ ְכ ַשׁ֥ל‬But he will stumble 71 ^ Rule 2: subj the one who turns his
face (king of north)
‫ וְ נ ַָפ֖ל‬and fall 72 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ל ֹא יִ מָּ ֵ ֽצא׃‬
֥ ְ‫ ו‬and not be found. 73 ^ C-C Reg.

As explained above, it is not clear whether ‫ ִבּ ְל ִתּי‬in v. 18 introduces a subordinate clause. However, if so, the last the sentence

of v. 18 would have no animate object, and rule two would apply instead of rule one. According to rule two the "commander" of v. 18

could be the subject throughout v. 19.32 However, rule two also allows for the more globally active subject to be anaphorically

referenced. Therefore, whether on the basis of rule one or rule two, it makes better sense to understand the referent of the anaphors in

v. 19 as the king of the north.

‫ֲביר נוֹגֵ ֖שׂ ֶה ֶ֣דר‬

֥ ִ ‫ וְ עָ ַמ֧ד עַ ל־כַּ נּ֛וֹ מַ ע‬20 In his place will arise one who sends out an exactor 74
‫ מַ ְלכ֑ וּת‬for the splendor of the kingdom.

32
This is the preference of Oliver Glanz (personal communication).

Page 23 of 39
 ‫ל ֹא‬
֥ ְ‫ל ֹא ְבאַ ַפּ֖יִ ם ו‬
֥ ְ‫ָמים אֲחָ ִדים ֙ יִ שָּׁ ֵ֔בר ו‬ ֤ ִ ‫וּבי‬
ְ But in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger 75 ^ Rule 2: subj the one who sends
‫ ְב ִמ ְלחָ ָ ֽמה׃‬or in battle. out an exactor (king
of north)
‫ וְ עָ ַמ֤ד עַ ל־כַּ נּוֹ ֙ נִ ְב ֶז֔ה‬21 In his place will arise a contemptible person. 76
‫ וְ ל ֹא־נ ְָתנ֥וּ עָ ָל֖יו ה֣ וֹד מַ ְלכ֑ וּת‬Royal dignity was not conferred on him. 77 ^ Rule 2: obj contemptible person
(king of north)
‫וּב֣א ְבשַׁ ְל ָו֔ה‬
ָ He will come in quietly, 78 ^ Rule 1: subj
‫ וְ הֶ חֱזִ ֥יק מַ ְלכ֖ וּת בַּ חֲלַ ְקלַ ֽקּוֹת׃‬and will seize the kingdom by smoothness. 79 ^ C-C Reg.

The Hebrew phrase for "in his place" in vv. 20, 21 also occurs in v. 38, where the referent is not a king, and is similar to an

instance in v. 7 (the same word without the preposition), where it does not indicate a replacement of an empire. Hence, the expression

"in his place" simply indicates succession and does not necessarily require the succession to be from one empire to another. Though

the phrase by itself does not indicate a replacement of the empire, its use in combination with other elements in the context could be

suggestive. Thus, the fact that in v. 21 the usurper is not conferred royal dignity allows for (but does not require) the possible

interpretation of the participant as a separate empire. The same, however, cannot be said for the succession in v. 20.

Also, the subject in v. 20 is a subordinate clause, "one who sends out an exactor." The entire subordinate clause functions as

the subject of the main sentence, and the main sentence does not have an object. Hence, the one who is "broken" in the following

sentence is the subject of the first sentence. That is, the one who is broken/defeated is not the exactor but the king who sent him.

Consequently, the contemptible person (v. 21) arises as his successor ("in his place"), not as the successor of the exactor.

Page 24 of 39
 At this point, it is appropriate to make some brief remarks concerning discourse related matters. On the one hand, the fact that

new participants are introduced in vv. 20-21 allows for the possibility of a paragraph or segment break here. On the other hand, the

fact that both verses begin with verbs is also significant, because it expresses continuity rather than discontinuity. In other words,

although the participants are new, they are successors of the king of the north, and therefore inherit the position and title of "the king

of the north."

‫ וּזְ רֹע֥ וֹת הַ ֶשּׁ֛טֶ ף יִ שָּׁ ְטפ֥ וּ ִמ ְלּפָ נָ ֖יו‬22 The sweeping arms will be swept away before him, 80 ^ Rule 2: obj
‫ וְ יִ שָּׁ ֵב֑רוּ וְ גַ ֖ם נְ ִג֥יד ְבּ ִ ֽרית׃‬and will be broken, also the prince of the covenant. 81 ^ C-C Reg.

Verse 22 begins in Hebrew with the subject rather than the verb. In fact, there are several non-verb initial sentences in the

following verses. However, the exact function of this and the other non-verb initial sentences must be determined by the context,

which is beyond the scope of this study. At the end of the next sentence, the phrase "also the prince of the covenant" occurs.33

Although the placement of a phrase at the end of a sentence can sometimes function as a means of highlighting it, it is not as

prominent as at the beginning of the sentence. Besides, this sentence consists of only two elements, the verb and this phrase, which

calls into question whether there is any highlighting at all. Adventists have traditionally, and as far as I know unanimously, interpreted

33
The conjunction ‫" וְ גַם‬and also" expresses the addition of more information. This can take the form of an additional action (as in v. 8) or the inclusion of
another sentence participant ("as well as" Gen 14:7). In the case of Dan 11:22 it expresses the inclusion of the prince of the covenant as an additional participant
in the plural subject of the sentence. That is, the "sweeping arms" will be broken (defeated), and along with them the prince of the covenant.

Page 25 of 39
the prince of the covenant as Jesus Christ. However, although Christ is central to the book of Daniel, and indeed central to the entire

Bible, that does not mean that "the prince of the covenant" plays the most prominent role in every part of every narrative. Theological

centrality does not equate with narrative prominence. We must beware of being more Christocentric than the Bible itself, lest we

worship our supposedly Christocentric theology instead of the true Christ as presented in Scripture.

‫ן־ה ְתחַ ְבּ ֥רוּת אֵ ָל֖יו ַיע ֲֶשׂ֣ה ִמ ְר ָמ֑ה‬

ֽ ִ ‫וּמ‬
ִ 23 After the making of an alliance with him he will 82 ^ Rule 2: subj contemptible person
practice deception.
‫ וְ עָ ָל֥ה‬He will go up 83 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ וְ עָ ַצ֖ם ִבּ ְמעַ ט־גּֽ וֹי׃‬and become mighty with a small people. 84 ^ C-C Reg.

The first sentence of v. 23 begins with a subordinate clause. Within that subordinate clause, it is not clear who makes the

alliance with whom. Therefore, the word "him" has not been color-coded.

֒ ‫וּב ִמ ְשׁמַ נֵּ ֣י ְמ ִדינָה ֮ יָבוֹא‬

ְ ‫ ְבּשַׁ ְל ָו֞ה‬24 He will come quietly and into the rich areas of the 85 ^ Rule 2: subj
province.
‫אבֹתָ יו ֙ ַואֲב֣ וֹת‬
ֲ ‫ֲשׁר ל ֹא־עָ שׂ֤ וּ‬
ֶ ֨ ‫שׂה א‬ ָ ֗ ָ‫ וְ ע‬He will do that which neither his fathers nor his 86 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ֹתיו‬ָ ֔ ‫אב‬ ֲ forefathers have done.
‫וּרכ֖ וּשׁ לָ ֶה֣ם יִ ְבז֑וֹר‬ ְ ‫ ִבּזָּ ֧ה וְ שָׁ ָל֛ל‬He will distribute to them plunder and spoil and 87 ^ Rule 2: subj
wealth.
‫ד־עֽת׃‬
ֵ ַ‫ֹתיו וְ ע‬
֖ ָ ‫ וְ ַע ֧ל ִמ ְבצָ ִ ֛רים יְ חַ ֵשּׁ֥ב מַ ְח ְשׁב‬Against the fortifications he will devise his plans, 88 ^ Rule 2: subj
but only for a time.

Page 26 of 39
 ֮ ‫ל־מ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֶנּגֶב‬ֶ ַ‫וּלבָ ֜בוֹ ע‬ְ ֹ‫ֹחו‬ ֨ ‫ וְ יָעֵ ר ֩ כּ‬25 He will arouse his strength and his heart against the 89 ^ Rule 2: subj
֒ ‫ְבּ ַח֣יִ ל גָּדוֹל‬ king of the south with a large army.
‫חיִ ל־‬ ֽ ַ ‫וּמ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֗ ֶנּגֶב יִ ְתגּ ֶָרה ֙ לַ ִמּ ְלחָ ֔ ָמה ְבּ‬
ֶ The king of the south will be stirred up for the battle 90
‫אד‬ ֹ ֑ ‫ד־מ‬
ְ ַ‫גּ ָ֥דוֹל וְ עָ צ֖ וּם ע‬ with a great and very strong army.

‫ע ֹ֔מד‬
ֲ ‫ל ֹא ַי‬
֣ ְ‫ ו‬But he will not stand. 91 ^ Rule 2: subj. king of south
‫ ִ ֽכּי־י ְַח ְשׁב֥ וּ עָ ָל֖יו מַ חֲשָׁ ֽבוֹת׃‬For plans will be devised against him. 92 ^ Rule 2: obj
‫ וְ א ְֹכ ֵל֧י פַ ת־בָּ ג֛וֹ יִ ְשׁ ְבּ ֖רוּהוּ‬26 And those who eat his provisions will break him. 93 ^ Rule 1: obj
‫ וְ חֵ יל֣ וֹ יִ ְשׁט֑ וֹף‬His army will be swept away, [textual variant] 94
‫לים ַר ִ ֽבּים׃‬
֥ ִ ָ‫ וְ נ ְָפל֖ וּ חֲל‬and many will fall slain. 95

In v. 26 in the second sentence, the MT has an active verb ‫" יִ ְשׁטוֹף‬it will overflow." However, the Syr. and the Vulg. translate

it as a passive, "he will be scattered/crushed." The passive meaning can be explained by a change in the vowelling of the MT from the

Qal ‫טף‬
ֹ ‫יִ ְשׁ‬/‫( יִ ְשׁטוֹף‬and several manuscripts have the shorter form, ‫טף‬
ֹ ‫ )יִ ְשׁ‬to the Niphal ‫יִ שָּׁ טֵ ף‬. The Syriac and Latin passive

translations suggest that the unvowelled Hebrew text was understood in a passive sense in at least some communities in antiquity. The

present study adopts the passive meaning because it fits the context better.

‫ֵיה֤ם הַ ְמּלָ ִכים ֙ ְלבָ ָב֣ם ְלמֵ ָ ֔רע‬

ֶ ‫וּשׁנ‬
ְ 27 As for the two kings, their hearts will be set on evil. 96
‫ וְ עַ ל־שֻׁ ְל ָח֥ן אֶ ָח֖ד כָּ ָז֣ב יְ ַד ֵבּ֑רוּ‬At the same table they will speak lies. 97 ^ Rule 2: subj the two kings
‫לח‬
ָ ֔ ‫ל ֹא ִת ְצ‬
֣ ְ‫ ו‬But it will not succeed. 98
‫מּוֹעֽד׃‬
ֵ ַ‫ ִכּי־ע֥ וֹד ֵ ֖קץ ל‬For the end is still for an appointed time. 99

Page 27 of 39
 ‫שׁב אַ ְרצוֹ ֙ ִבּ ְרכ֣ וּשׁ גּ ָ֔דוֹל‬
ֹ ֤ ‫ וְ ָי‬28 He will return to his land with great riches, 100 ^ Rule 2: subj contemptible person
(king of north)
‫ק ֶדשׁ‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ל־בּ ִ ֣רית‬
ְ ַ‫וּלבָ ב֖ וֹ ע‬
ְ with his heart set against the holy covenant. 101
‫ וְ עָ ָשׂ֖ה‬He will take action. 102 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ וְ ָשׁ֥ב ְלאַ ְר ֽצוֹ׃‬Then he will return to his own land. 103 ^ Rule 2: subj

Verse 28 begins with a sentence that contains an anaphoric subject "he," expressed by the 3ms morphology of the verb ‫וְ ָישֹׁב‬

"and he will return," and no animate object. The immediately preceding sentence in v. 27 has a specified non-human subject ‫" קֵ ץ‬the

end" and no object. This is preceded by a sentence that has a 3fs subject in an impersonal/subjectless expression, which in turn, is

preceded by a sentence that has a plural anaphoric subject "they," expressed by the plural verb, referring to both kings. Thus, the

referent of the anaphor in v. 28 could potentially be either of the two kings. However, although the king of the south is globally active

in vv. 25-26, the king of the north is the more globally active participant in the context. He is last mentioned in v. 15, which states that

the "king of the north will come," and is therefore "the one who comes" in v. 16, and he continues in v. 21 as the "contemptible

person" who arises as a successor "in his place." The "king of the south" (v. 14) is not explicitly mentioned again until v. 25, when

"he," the king of the north, comes against him. Further, the identity of the referent of the anaphor in v. 28 as the king of the north is

confirmed by the fact that he eventually comes to attack "the south" in v. 29.34

34
In a personal communication, de Regt explained it as follows:
Starting at least in verse 16, the king of the north is (or the successive kings of the north are) being referred to anaphorically. This continues
into verse 25, making the king of the north the most active across clauses in (this part of) the discourse, with the highest continuity. Perhaps this

Page 28 of 39
 ‫מּוֹע֥ד יָשׁ֖ וּב‬
ֵ ַ‫ ל‬29 At the appointed time he will again 104 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫וּב֣א בַ נֶּ ֑גֶב‬
ָ come into the south. 105 ^ C-C Reg.
‫חרֹנָ ֽה׃‬
ֲ ַ‫א־ת ְהיֶ ֥ה כָ ִראשֹׁנָ ֖ה וְ כָ א‬
ִ ֹ ‫ וְ ֽל‬But the latter event will not be as the first. 106

Verse 29 begins with a temporal phrase, which potentially marks a transition to a new paragraph or narrative segment.

However, the fact that a new segment begins here does not alter the anaphoric relationships.

The third and last sentence in v. 29 can be translated in two ways. Literally the sentence reads, "And/but it will not be as the

first or as the last." However, the correct translation depends on whether it is understood to be a comparison of two events or three

events. If the 3fs verb "to be" is not anaphoric, i.e., it has no feminine singular referent in the context, then the verb is subjectless. The

English translation adds the subject "it" as a dummy subject or a placeholder, not an actual subject. In this case, there are only two

events being compared. According to HALOT a comparison between the two nouns can be expressed by the repetition of the

preposition ‫" ְכּ‬as/like" in sequence, ‫ ְכּ‬. . . ‫" ְכּ‬as . . . (and) as."35 That is, unlike English comparisons, where one participant is the

is a basis for saying that with the global references to the king of the north surpassing the slightly less global (only vv. 25b-26) references to the
king of the south, it is the king of the north who is the most likely candidate for the reference in 11:28.
35
Compare with the word ‫" בֵּ ין‬between," which, in contrast to English, also occurs in pairs in Biblical Hebrew (e.g., Gen 1:4; 16:5; 30:36). The sequence can
also occur as ‫ בֵּ ין‬followed by ‫( ְל‬e.g., Lev 20:25). However, the preposition ‫ ְכּ‬does not always occur in pairs.

Page 29 of 39
subject of the comparison, Hebrew comparisons are sometimes expressed by repeating prepositional phrases with ‫כּ‬,
ְ and neither

participant is the subject. The following is an example from 1 Kgs 22:4:

‫ל־מ֣לֶ ְך יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל‬
ֶ ֶ‫ וַיּ ֹ֤אמֶ ר יְ ֽהוֹשָׁ פָ ט ֙ א‬And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel:
‫" כָּ מ֧ וֹנִ י כָ מ֛ וָֹך‬I am as you are, [lit., As I as you]
‫ ְכּעַ ִ ֥מּי ְכעַ ֶמָּ֖ך‬My people are as your people, [lit., As my people as
your people]
‫סוּסיָך׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫סוּס֥י ְכּ‬ַ ‫ ְכּ‬and my horses are as your horses." [lit., as my
horses as your horses]

Another example occurs in Gen 18:25.

‫ֲשׂת׀ כַּ ָדּ ָב֣ר הַ ֗ ֶזּה‬ ֣ ֹ ‫ חָ ִ֨ללָ ה ְלּ ָ֜ך מֵ ע‬25 Far be it from you to do this thing, to kill the
‫שׁע‬ָ ֔ ‫ם־ר‬
ָ ‫מית צַ ִדּיק ֙ ִע‬ ֤ ִ ָ‫ ְלה‬righteous with the wicked,
‫ וְ הָ יָ ֥ה כַ צַּ ִ ֖דּיק כָּ ָר ָשׁ֑ע‬so that the righteous will be like the wicked. [lit., so
that it will be as the righteous as the wicked]

The last example above is literally, "it will be as the righteous as the wicked," which is very similar to the sentence in Daniel 11:29.36

The sentence structure of these comparisons may be understood as, "And it is (not) X as Y," in which case there are only two events or

36
For other examples, see Lev 7:7; 24:16, 22; Num 15:15; Deut 1:17; 1 Sam 30:24; Isa 24:2; Hos 4:9.

Page 30 of 39
encounters being compared in Daniel 11:29, not three, and the English translation adopted here is a necessary accommodation for the

requirements of English usage for the sake of clarity.37

An alternative possibility is that the 3fs verb "to be" in v. 29 is indeed anaphoric, referring to an event, the second conflict

between the king of the north and the king of the south. If so, it is possible that there is a comparison of three events, the "first" in the

past (vv. 25-28), the second just mentioned in v. 29, and the "last" in the future (vv. 40-45).38 If so, the sentence should be translated,

"But it will not be as the first or as the last."

֙ ‫וּבאוּ ֜בוֹ ִצ ִיּ ֤ים ִכּ ִתּים‬

ָ֨ 30 Ships of Kittim will come against him, 107 ^ Rule 2: obj
‫ וְ נִ ְכ ָ֔אה‬and he will be disheartened. 108 ^ Rule 1: subj "him" (king of north)
‫ וְ ָשׁ֛ב‬He will again 109 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫וֹדשׁ‬
ֶ ֖‫ל־בּ ִ ֽרית־ק‬
ְ ַ‫ וְ ז ַָע֥ם ע‬be indignant against the holy covenant 110 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ עָ ָשׂ֑ה‬and take action. 111 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ ָשׁ֣ב‬He will again 112 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫בי ְבּ ִ ֥רית ֹֽק ֶדשׁ׃‬
֖ ֵ ְ‫ָבן עַ ל־עֹ ז‬
ֵ֔ ‫ וְ י‬pay attention to those who forsake the holy 113 ^ C-C Reg.
covenant.

37
Special contexts may depart from the typical English syntax, such as the proverbial saying, "Like father, like son," which does not mean that a third person is
similar to a father and a son, but simply that a son is like his father.
38
For other examples of more than one preposition ‫ ְכּ‬with a verb "to be" that has a clear antecedent resulting in an additional participant in the sentence, see 2
Kgs 3:2; 2 Chron 30:7.

Page 31 of 39
 There are different views on the identity of the "ships of Kittim in v. 30. However, I will not try to resolve this question here,

because the identity of Kittim does not alter the anaphoric references in the passage.

‫מדוּ‬
ֹ֑ ‫ע‬
ֲ ‫ וּזְ ר ִֹע֖ים ִמ ֶמּ֣נּוּ ַי‬31 Arms will arise from him 114
֙ ‫ וְ ִח ְלּ ֞לוּ הַ ִמּ ְק ָדּ֤שׁ הַ מָּ עוֹז‬and will profane the sanctuary fortress. 115 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ הֵ ִס֣ירוּ הַ תָּ ִ֔מיד‬They will remove the continual worship 116 ^ Rule 2: subj arms
‫שׁוֹמם׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ וְ נ ְָתנ֖וּ הַ ִשּׁקּ֥ וּץ ְמ‬and set up the desolating abomination. 117 ^ C-C Reg.
‫יע ֣י ְב ִ ֔רית ַיח ֲִנ֖יף בַּ חֲלַ קּ֑ וֹת‬
ֵ ‫ וּמַ ְר ִשׁ‬32 He will corrupt those who act wickedly towards the 118 ^ Rule 2: subj "he" (king of north)
covenant with smooth words.
‫ֱֹלה֖יו ַיחֲזִ ֥קוּ‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַע ֛ם י ְֹד ֵע֥י א‬But the people who know their God will be strong 119
‫ וְ עָ ֽשׂוּ׃‬and take action. 120 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ל ַר ִבּ֑ים‬
ֽ ָ ‫ָבינוּ‬
֖ ִ ‫ וּמַ ְשׂ ִכּ֣ילֵ י ֔ ָעם י‬33 The wise among the people will give understanding 121
to the many.
‫וּב ִבזָּ ֖ה‬
ְ ‫וּבלֶ הָ ָב֛ה ִבּ ְשׁ ִ ֥בי‬
ְ ‫ וְ נִ ְכ ְשׁ ֞לוּ ְבּ ֶח ֶ֧רב‬They will stumble by sword, flame, captivity, and 122 ^ Rule 1: subj the many
‫ י ִ ָֽמים׃‬plunder for some days.
‫לם יֵעָ זְ ֖רוּ ֵע֣זֶר ְמ ָע ֑ט‬
ָ ֔ ‫וּב ִה ָכּ ְ֣שׁ‬
ְ 34 When they stumble, they will be helped with a little 123 ^ Rule 2: subj (same)
help.
‫יה֛ם ַר ִ ֖בּים בַּ חֲלַ ְקלַ ֽקּוֹת׃‬
ֶ ֵ‫ וְ נִ ְלו֧וּ עֲל‬And many will join them in hypocrisy. 124 ^ Rule 2: obj (same)
‫כּ ְשׁ ֗לוּ ִל ְצ ֥רוֹף בָּ ֶה֛ם‬
ֽ ָ ִ‫יל֣ים י‬ִ ‫וּמן־הַ מַּ ְשׂ ִכּ‬
ִ 35 Some of the wise will stumble to refine, purge, and 125
‫ד־ע ֣ת ֵ ֑קץ‬ ֵ ַ‫רר וְ לַ ְל ֵבּ֖ן ע‬ ְ make them white until the time of the end.
֥ ֵ ָ‫וּלב‬

‫מּוֹעֽד׃‬
ֵ ַ‫ ִכּי־ע֖ וֹד ל‬For it is still for an appointed time. 126
‫שׂה ִכ ְרצוֹנ֜וֹ הַ ֗ ֶמּלֶ ְך‬
ָ ֨ ָ‫ וְ ע‬36 The king will do according to his will. 127
‫רוֹמ֤ם‬
ֵ ‫ וְ יִ ְת‬He will exalt himself, 128 ^ Rule 2: subj "the king"

Page 32 of 39
 ‫ל־אל‬
ֵ֔ ָ‫ וְ יִ ְתגּ ֵַדּל ֙ עַ ל־כּ‬and will magnify himself against every god, 129 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ עַ ל ֙ ֵא֣ל אֵ ִ֔לים יְ ַד ֵבּ֖ר נִ ְפלָ א֑ וֹת‬and will speak amazing things against the God of 130 ^ C-C Reg.
gods.
‫ד־כּ ֣לָ ה ַז֔עַ ם‬
ָ ַ‫יח ֙ ע‬
ַ ‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִ֨ל‬He will succeed until the indignation is finished. 131 ^ Rule 2: subj ("he"--the king)
‫ֱשׂתָ ה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ ִ ֥כּי ֶנח ֱָר ָצ֖ה ֶנע‬For what is determined will be done. 132

The first sentence in v. 36 has "the king" as the subject. Smith suggests that this is a new participant, revolutionary France.39

Since this can be considered a designation rather than an anaphor, the sentence has a specified subject and no object, and therefore de

Regt's rules do not apply. However, the word ‫" הַ מֶּ לֶ ְך‬the king" has an article, and the article can have an anaphoric function. It is not

"a" king, but "the" king, which implies that he is not a new participant, but one that was mentioned earlier in the narrative. Therefore,

"the king" is the one that has been most globally active in the last few verses, against whom the ships of Kittim came, i.e., the

contemptible person of v. 21.40 Rather than introducing a new participant, the specification of "the king" may indicate the beginning of

a new narrative segment that returns to talking about him after a few sentences where other participants were in focus.

‫ל ֹא י ִָ֔בין‬
֣ ֙ ‫אבֹתָ יו‬
ֲ ‫ֱֹלה֤י‬
ֵ ‫ וְ עַ ל־א‬37 He will not acknowledge the gods of his ancestors. 133 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ל ֹא‬
֣ ‫וֹהּ‬
ַ ֖‫דּת נ ִָשׁ֛ים וְ ַעֽל־כָּ ל־אֱל‬
֥ ַ ‫ וְ עַ ל־חֶ ְמ‬He will not acknowledge the one desired by women, 134 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ י ִָב֑ין‬or any god.

39
Thoughts, 315-318.
40
Also, in the MT the word occurs at the end of the sentence, not at the beginning, which suggests that the participant had already been introduced to the reader.
However, this point may be mitigated by the fact that Theod places the word at the beginning of the next sentence. See the discussion in Appendix B of my
previous paper.

Page 33 of 39
 ‫כּל יִ ְתגּ ָ ַֽדּל׃‬
ֹ ֖ ‫ ִ ֥כּי עַ ל־‬For he will magnify himself above all. 135 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ וְ לֶ א ֱֹ֨ל ַהּ ֙ ָ ֽמעֻ ִ֔זּים עַ ל־כַּ נּ֖וֹ יְ כַ ֵבּ֑ד‬38 In its place he will honor the god of fortresses. 136 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ֹתיו יְ כַ ֵבּ֛ד‬
ָ ֗ ‫אב‬
ֲ ‫וֹהּ א ֲֶשׁ֧ר ל ֹא־יְ ָד ֻע ֣הוּ‬ ַ ‫ וְ לֶ א ֱ֜ל‬A god whom his ancestors did not know he will 137 ^ C-C Reg.
‫רה וּבַ חֲמֻ ֽדוֹת׃‬ ֖ ָ ָ‫וּב ֶא֥בֶ ן יְ ק‬ ְ ‫ ְבּז ָָה֥ב‬honor with gold and silver and precious stones and
ְ ‫וּב ֶכ֛סֶ ף‬
desirable things.
‫וֹהּ‬
ַ ֣‫שׂה ְל ִמ ְב ְצ ֵר֤י ָ ֽמעֻ זִּ ים ֙ ִעם־אֱל‬ ָ ֞ ָ‫ וְ ע‬39 He will take action against the strongholds of 138 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ֵכר א ֲֶשׁ֥ר הַ ִ ֖כּיר‬ ָ ֔ ‫ נ‬fortresses with a foreign god, whom he recognizes.
‫ י ְַר ֶבּ֣ה כָ ב֑ וֹד‬He will increase honor. 139 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ וְ ִה ְמ ִשׁילָ ם ֙ ָ ֽבּ ַר ִ֔בּים‬He will make them rule over the many, 140 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ ַוא ֲָד ָמ֖ה יְ חַ ֵלּ֥ק ִבּ ְמ ִ ֽחיר׃‬and apportion the land for a price. 141 ^ C-C Reg.
‫וּב ֵע ֣ת ֵ֗קץ יִ ְתנַגַּ ֤ח ִעמּוֹ ֙ ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ ֔ ֶנּגֶב‬
ְ 40 At the time of the end the king of the south will join 142
in combat with him.
֙ ‫ליו ֶמ֣לֶ ְך הַ צָּ ֗פוֹן ְבּ ֶ ֨רכֶ ב‬ָ ֜ ָ‫ וְ יִ ְשׂתָּ ֨ ֵער ע‬But the king of the north will storm against him with 143 ^ Rule 2: obj king of south
‫וּב ָפ ָ֣ר ִ֔שׁים וּבָ אֳנִ יּ֖וֹת ַרבּ֑ וֹת‬ ְ chariots, horsemen, and many ships.

‫וּב֥א בַ א ֲָרצ֖ וֹת‬

ָ He will enter countries, 144 ^ C-C Reg. (king of north)
‫ וְ שָׁ ַט֥ף‬and overflow, 145 ^ C-C Reg.
‫ וְ עָ ָ ֽבר׃‬and cross over. 146 ^ C-C Reg.

Verse 40 begins with a temporal phrase, indicating a transition to a new paragraph or segment of the narrative. The start of a

new segment is also the reason why the kings of the south and north are specifically mentioned again. As I argued in my previous

paper, the use of anaphors does not constitute an underspecification, but rather the re-occurrence of a name or designation constitutes

an overspecification. Specifying the participants by name or designation is one of the ways in which a narrative introduces a new

segment. The reappearance of the king of the south in the narrative after a long gap (he is mentioned v. 25, and "the south" is

Page 34 of 39
mentioned in v. 29) and the resumption of the north-south conflict constitutes the topic of the new narrative segment. However, a

transition to a new segment of the narrative does not affect the anaphoric references.

The first sentence of v. 40 has a specified subject, "the king of the south," and no object or object complement, since ֹ‫" ִעמּו‬with

him" expresses accompaniment. Since de Regt's rules do not apply, the identity of the pronominal suffix "him" must be inferred from

the context, which suggests that it is coreferential with the "he" of previous verses, which is the king of the north because "the king" of

v. 36 is also the contemptible person of v. 21. Though this sentence has no animate object, the next sentence has the expression ‫עָ לָ יו‬

"against him," which functions as an object, and therefore rule two applies, and the subject of the first sentence is the referent of the

anaphor in the second sentence. That is, the object of the second sentence is the king of the south.41

As for nature of the combat, the Hebrew verb ‫" יִ ְת ַנגַּח‬join in combat" comes from a root that denotes an animal goring with its

horns (Exod 21:28; 1 Kgs 22:11). This is the only occurrence in the hithpael stem, which usually denotes reflexive or reciprocal

action. The form of the verb neither requires a specific amount of time for the action, nor a victor in the conflict. However, the context

supplies that information. That is, the king of the south initiates the conflict, and the king of the north eventually defeats him.

‫ וּבָ א ֙ ְבּ ֶא ֶ֣רץ הַ ְצּ ִ֔בי‬41 He will enter the beautiful land. 147 ^ Rule 2: subj

41
Smith (Thoughts, 326-330) understood the verse to depict a conflict of Egypt (king of the south) and Turkey (king of the north) against France ("the king" of v.
36). However, as explained earlier, the king in v. 36 was the king of the north. Further, since v. 40 is the beginning of a new narrative segment, the participants
are specified again by designation, and there is no specification for a third king.

Page 35 of 39
 ‫ וְ ַרבּ֖ וֹת יִ כָּ ֵשׁ֑לוּ‬Many (lands) will fall, 148
‫אשׁית‬
֖ ִ ‫וּמוֹאב וְ ֵר‬
ָ֔ ‫ָדוֹ א ֱ֣דוֹם‬
֔ ‫ וְ ֵ֨אלֶּ ה ֙ יִ מָּ ְלט֣ וּ ִמיּ‬but these will escape his hand, Edom, Moab, and the 149
‫ ְבּנֵ ֥י עַ ֽמּוֹן׃‬leaders of the Ammonites.
‫ וְ יִ ְשׁ ַל֥ח י ָ֖דוֹ בַּ א ֲָרצ֑ וֹת‬42 He will stretch his hand into (other) lands, 150 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫יטה׃‬
ֽ ָ ֵ‫ל ֹא ִת ְהיֶ ֖ה ִל ְפל‬
֥ ‫ וְ ֶא ֶ֣רץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם‬and the land of Egypt will not escape. 151
‫כל‬
ֹ ֖ ‫וּב‬
ְ ‫כּסֶ ף‬
ֶ ֔ ַ‫שׁל ְבּ ִמ ְכמַ ֵנּי ֙ הַ זּ ָָה֣ב וְ ה‬ ַ ֗ ָ‫ וּמ‬43 He will rule over the hidden treasures of gold and 152 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ חֲמֻ ֣דוֹת ִמ ְצ ָר֑יִ ם‬silver and over the precious things of Egypt,
‫שׁים ְבּ ִמ ְצעָ ָ ֽדיו׃‬ ֖ ִ ֻ‫ וְ לֻ ִ ֥בים וְ כ‬with the Libyans and Ethiopians in his footsteps. 153
‫וּמצָּ פ֑ וֹן‬
ִ ‫רח‬
֖ ָ ְ‫ֲלהוּ ִמ ִמּז‬
ֻ ֔ ‫וּשׁמֻ ע֣ וֹת יְ בַ ה‬
ְ 44 But reports from the east and the north will frighten 154 ^ Rule 2: obj
him.
‫ֹלה ְלהַ ְשׁ ִ ֥מיד וּֽ ְלהַ ח ִ ֲ֖רים‬
ָ ֔ ‫וְ יָצָ א ֙ ְבּחֵ ָמ֣א גְ ד‬ He will go out with great fury to destroy and to 155 ^ Rule 1: subj "him" (king of north)
‫ַר ִ ֽבּים׃‬ exterminate many.
‫ֳל ֣י אַ פַּ ְדנ֔וֹ ֵבּ֥ין י ִ ַ֖מּים ְלהַ ר־‬ֶ ‫ וְ יִ טַּ ע ֙ אָ ה‬45 He will plant his royal tents between the seas and 156 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ק ֶדשׁ‬ ֹ ֑ ‫ְצ ִבי־‬ the holy beautiful mountain.
ֹ‫ד־ק ֔צּו‬
ִ ַ‫וּבָ א ֙ ע‬ But he will come to his end, 157 ^ Rule 2: subj
‫ וְ ֵא֥ין עוֹ ֵז ֖ר ֽלוֹ׃‬with no one to help him. 158 ^ Rule 2: obj

These verses continue the narrative after the victory of the king of the north over the king of the south until his final end. In the

second sentence of v. 41, the word "lands" is added in parenthesis, because the Hebrew word ‫" וְ ַרבּוֹת‬many" is feminine, and therefore

refers to lands or countries rather than people (cf. the masculine ‫" ַר ִבּים‬many" [people] in v. 44). The context of vv. 41-43 deals with

the countries, the beautiful "land" (‫ אֶ ֶרץ‬v. 41) the other "lands" (‫ א ֲָרצוֹת‬v. 42), and the "land" of Egypt (‫ אֶ ֶרץ‬v. 42). There is a listing

Page 36 of 39
of some countries that escape (Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites, v. 41) and some that do not (Egypt, v. 42, Lybians and Ethiopians, v.

43).

‫ע ֹ֨מד ִ ֽמיכָ ֵ֜אל הַ ַשּׂ֣ר הַ גּ ָ֗דוֹל‬

ֲ ‫ וּבָ ֵע ֣ת הַ ִהיא ֩ ַי‬1 12 At that time Michael the great prince who stands 159
֒ ‫ל־בּנֵ ֣י עַ מֶּ ָך‬
ְ ַ‫ הָ עֹ מֵ ד ֮ ע‬over the sons of your people will arise.

‫ וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ֙ ֵע ֣ת צָ ָ ֔רה א ֲֶשׁ֤ר ֽל ֹא־נִ ְהיְ תָ ה ֙ ִ ֽמ ְהי֣וֹת גּ֔וֹי‬There will be a time of trouble which has not 160
‫ ַע֖ד הָ ֵע ֣ת הַ ִה֑יא‬been since a nation came to be until that time.

‫וּבָ ֵע ֤ת הַ ִהיא ֙ יִ מָּ ֵל ֣ט עַ ְמּ ָ֔ך כָּ ל־הַ נִּ ְמ ָצ֖א כָּ ת֥ וּב‬ At that time your people, all who are found 161
‫בַּ ֵ ֽסּפֶ ר׃‬ written in the book, will be delivered.
‫ָקיצוּ אֵ ֚לֶּ ה‬ ֑ ִ ‫ וְ ַר ִ֕בּים ִמיְּ שֵׁ נֵ ֥י אַ ְדמַ ת־עָ ָפ֖ר י‬2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the 162
‫עוֹלם׃‬
ָֽ ‫עוֹלם וְ ֵא֥לֶּ ה לַ ח ֲָרפ֖ וֹת ְל ִד ְרא֥ וֹן‬ ָ֔ ‫ְלחַ יֵּ ֣י‬ ground will wake up, some to eternal life and
some to shame and eternal contempt.
‫ס‬
֙ ‫יע וּמַ ְצ ִדּיקֵ י‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֨ ַהמַּ ְשׂ ִכּ ִ֔לים יַזְ ִ ֖הרוּ ְכּ ֹז֣הַ ר הָ ָר ִ ֑ק‬3 The wise will shine like the glow of the 163
‫עוֹל֥ם ו ֶָעֽד׃ פ‬ ָ ‫ה ַר ִ֔בּים כַּ כּוֹכָ ִ ֖בים ְל‬ ָֽ firmament, the ones who turn the many to
righteousness like the stars forever and ever.

There is no need for color-coding in 12:1-3, since there are no anaphoric references and there is no disagreement on the

identity of the participants. Verse 1 begins with a temporal phrase, indicating a transition to a new paragraph or segment of the

narrative. The same temporal phrase occurs again in the last sentence of the verse, after which there are two non-verb initial sentences,

suggesting that the last three sentences list these final events without any implied chronological sequence.

Page 37 of 39
 Conclusion

In conclusion, the color-coded translation, as explained in my earlier paper, was not

designed as the final definitive translation in all respects but rather simply as a translation that

clarifies the identity of the participants. Further refinements are certainly in order, and, as you

can see, some of the observations made here go beyond the color-coding.

In this paper I attempted to explain some of the implications of the Hebrew text of Daniel

11:2b-12:3. I have tried to be fair to all interpretive approaches, and if I failed in any way, please,

forgive me. I could not settle all interpretive issues, and I do not claim to have the last word on

the Hebrew text, as I am still learning. This research is not intended as the end of the discussion,

but as a helpful resource for further study and discussion.

References

De Regt, Lénart J. "Anaphoric Accessibility in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Global and Local
Participant Tracking across Clause Boundaries." Pages 63-78 in Ancient Texts and
Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation. Ed.
Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and John A. Messarra. Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
________. Linguistic Coherence in Biblical Hebrew Texts: Arrangement of Information,
Participant Reference Devices, Verb Forms, and Their Contribution to Textual
Segmentation and CoherenceI. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 28.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2019.
Doukhan, Jacques. Daniel 11 Decoded: An Exegetical, Historical, and Theological Study.
Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2019.
Gane, Roy E. "Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel." Pages 137-148 in To
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David
Merling. Berrien Springs: The Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn
Archaeological Museum, 1977.
________. "Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3." JATS 27 (2017): 294-343.
Li, Tarsee. "A Color-Coded Translation of Daniel 11:2b-12:3." Paper presented at the Daniel 11
Conference, October 20, 2022.
Rodríguez, Ángel Manuel. Daniel 11 and the Islam Interpretation. Silver Spring: Biblical
Research Institute, 2015.
Roosenberg, Tim. Islam and Christianity in Prophecy. Hagerstown: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 2011.

Page 38 of 39
Smith, Uriah. Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel. Battle Creek: Steam
Press, 1873.
Vine, Conrad. "Interpretations of Daniel 11." Nov. 9, 2020.
Witcombe, John C. Jerusalem Caliphate and the Third Jihad. Helena: Prophecy Waymarks
Publications, 2013.
________. Eastern Question Answered! Helena: Prophecy Waymarks Publications, 2020.
Were, Louis F. Power Unlimited: Righteousness by Faith and the Final Conflict. Berrien
Springs: First Impressions, 1980.
________. The King of the North at Jerusalem: God's People Delivered. St. Maries, ID: LMN
Publishing International, 2002.
Young, Ian. "Observations on the Third Person Masculine Pronominal Suffix -H in Hebrew
Biblical Texts." Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 225-242.

Page 39 of 39