translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: DAN

label: NET study note

text: The antecedent of the pronoun “I” is the angel, not Daniel. The traditional chapter division at this point, and the presence of a chronological note in the verse similar to ones used elsewhere in the book to position Daniel’s activities in relation to imperial affairs, sometimes lead to confusion on this matter.


text: Perhaps these three more kings are Cambyses (ca. 530-522 B.C. ), Pseudo-Smerdis (ca. 522 B.C. ), and Darius I Hystaspes (ca. 522-486 B.C. ).


text: This fourth king is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 B.C. ). The following reference to one of his chiefs apparently has in view Seleucus Nicator.


text: The powerful king mentioned here is Alexander the Great (ca. 336-323 B.C. ).


text: The king of the south is Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 323-285 B.C. ). The following reference to one of his subordinates apparently has in view Seleucus I Nicator (ca. 311-280 B.C. ). Throughout the remainder of chap. the expressions “king of the south” and “king of the north” repeatedly occur. It is clear, however, that these terms are being used generically to describe the Ptolemaic king (i.e., “of the south”) or the Seleucid king (i.e., “of the north”) who happens to be in power at any particular time. The specific identity of these kings can be established more or less successfully by a comparison of this chapter with the available extra-biblical records that discuss the history of the intertestamental period. In the following notes the generally accepted identifications are briefly mentioned.


text: Here they refers to Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 285-246 B.C. ) and Antiochus II Theos (ca. 262-246 B.C. ).


text: The daughter refers to Berenice, who was given in marriage to Antiochus II Theos.


text: Antiochus II eventually divorced Berenice and remarried his former wife Laodice, who then poisoned her husband, had Berenice put to death, and installed her own son, Seleucus II Callinicus (ca. 246-227 B.C. ), as the Seleucid king.


text: The reference is to the king of Egypt.


text: The sons of Seleucus II Callinicus were Seleucus III Ceraunus (ca. 227-223 B.C. ) and Antiochus III the Great (ca. 223-187 B.C. ).


text: This king of the south refers to Ptolemy IV Philopator (ca. 221-204 B.C. ).


text: This was Ptolemy V Epiphanes (ca. 203-181 B.C. ).


text: This well-fortified city is apparently Sidon. Its capture from the Ptolemies by Antiochus the Great was a strategic victory for the Seleucid kingdom.


text: The commander is probably the Roman commander, Lucius Cornelius Scipio.


text: The one who will send out an exactor of tribute was Seleucus IV Philopator (ca. 187-176 B.C. ).


text: Perhaps this exactor of tribute was Heliodorus (cf. 2 Maccabees 3).


text: This despicable person to whom the royal honor has not been rightfully conferred is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca. 175-164 B.C. ).


text: This king of the south was Ptolemy Philometer (ca. 181-145 B.C. ).


text: The name Kittim has various designations in extra-biblical literature. It can refer to a location on the island of Cyprus, or more generally to the island itself, or it can be an inclusive term to refer to parts of the Mediterranean world that lay west of the Middle East (e.g., Rome). For ships of Kittim the Greek OT (LXX) has “Romans,” an interpretation followed by a few English versions (e.g., TEV). A number of times in the Dead Sea Scrolls the word is used in reference to the Romans. Other English versions are more generic: “[ships] of the western coastlands” (NIV, NLT); “from the west” (NCV, CEV).


text: This is apparently a reference to the Roman forces, led by Gaius Popilius Laenas, which confronted Antiochus when he came to Egypt and demanded that he withdraw or face the wrath of Rome. Antiochus wisely withdrew from Egypt, albeit in a state of bitter frustration.


text: This is an allusion to the Maccabean revolt, which struggled to bring about Jewish independence in the second century B.C .


text: The identity of this king is problematic. If vv. 36-45 continue the description of Antiochus Epiphanes, the account must be viewed as erroneous, since the details do not match what is known of Antiochus’ latter days. Most modern scholars take this view, concluding that this section was written just shortly before the death of Antiochus and that the writer erred on several key points as he tried to predict what would follow the events of his own day. Conservative scholars, however, usually understand the reference to shift at this point to an eschatological figure, viz ., the Antichrist. The chronological gap that this would presuppose to be in the narrative is not necessarily a problem, since by all accounts there are many chronological gaps throughout the chapter, as the historical figures intended by such expressions as “king of the north” and “king of the south” repeatedly shift.


text: The beautiful land is a cryptic reference to the land of Israel.


text: Presumably seas refers to the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea.