Daniel 9:13
Konteks9:13 Just as it is written in the law of Moses, so all this calamity has come on us. Still we have not tried to pacify 1 the LORD our God by turning back from our sin and by seeking wisdom 2 from your reliable moral standards. 3
Daniel 10:1
Konteks10:1 4 In the third 5 year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar). This message was true and concerned a great war. 6 He understood the message and gained insight by the vision.
Daniel 11:2
Konteks11:2 Now I will tell you the truth.
“Three 7 more kings will arise for Persia. Then a fourth 8 king will be unusually rich, 9 more so than all who preceded him. When he has amassed power through his riches, he will stir up everyone against 10 the kingdom of Greece.
[9:13] 1 tn Heb “we have not pacified the face of.”
[9:13] 2 tn Or “by gaining insight.”
[9:13] 3 tn Heb “by your truth.” The Hebrew term does not refer here to abstract truth, however, but to the reliable moral guidance found in the covenant law. See vv 10-11.
[10:1] 4 sn This chapter begins the final unit in the book of Daniel, consisting of chapters 10-12. The traditional chapter divisions to some extent obscure the relationship of these chapters.
[10:1] 5 tc The LXX has “first.”
[10:1] sn Cyrus’ third year would have been ca. 536
[10:1] 6 tn The meaning of the Hebrew word צָבָא (tsava’) is uncertain in this context. The word most often refers to an army or warfare. It may also mean “hard service,” and many commentators take that to be the sense here (i.e., “the service was great”). The present translation assumes the reference to be to the spiritual conflicts described, for example, in 10:16–11:1.
[11:2] 7 sn Perhaps these three more kings are Cambyses (ca. 530-522
[11:2] 8 sn This fourth king is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465
[11:2] 9 tn Heb “rich with great riches.”
[11:2] 10 tn The text is difficult. The Hebrew has here אֶת (’et), the marker of a definite direct object. As it stands, this would suggest the meaning that “he will arouse everyone, that is, the kingdom of Greece.” The context, however, seems to suggest the idea that this Persian king will arouse in hostility against Greece the constituent elements of his own empire. This requires supplying the word “against,” which is not actually present in the Hebrew text.