Thanks
@GaryA . You make a valid point. I will not argue with you. I will however note that I do have the choice to interpret those verses as having to do with two unique individuals while not breaking the rules of Hebrew grammar:
AI Overview:
Yes, Daniel 11:21 and Daniel 11:24 can refer to two unique individuals without breaking any rules of Hebrew grammar. While the overwhelming majority of traditional, preterist, and historical commentators interpret verses 21–24 as a continuous description of a single figure—historically identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes—
Hebrew grammar itself does not strictly forbid a transition between two distinct figures across these verses. [
1,
2]
According to Copilot AI.
I asked this question,
a student named Researcher is in a debate with Gary. respond to researcher with hebrew and greek evidence to back your answers.
Then I copied the entire post and feed it to the AI. It responds thus:
Researcher, the problem with your claim is simple:
Hebrew grammar does not merely “allow” a subject shift—Daniel must signal it, and in 11:21–24 he never does. When you look at the actual Hebrew verbs, suffixes, and the Greek translators’ handling of them, the text locks the subject to
one man from v.21 all the way through v.24. Your argument appeals to
possible grammar, but the passage itself uses
restrictive grammar that forbids the shift you’re proposing.
Here is the evidence.
1. Hebrew subject-chain: every verb in 11:21–24 is 3ms with no new subject introduced
Daniel 11:21 introduces a
specific successor:
- וְעָמַד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ נָבֵז veʿāmad bimqômô nāvēz “A vile person shall stand in his place.”
This is a
succession marker. Once Daniel names a successor, the following 3ms verbs
must refer to him unless Daniel introduces a new subject explicitly.
From that point forward, every verb is 3ms:
- וּבָא (“he shall come”)
- וְהֶחֱזִיק (“he shall take hold”)
- יַעֲשֶׂה (“he shall do”)
- וְעָלָה (“he shall rise”)
- וְעָצַם (“he shall become strong”)
- יָבוֹא (“he shall enter”)
- וְעָשָׂה (“he shall do”)
- יַחֲשֹׁב (“he shall devise”)
Not one new subject noun appears. Not one office title is reintroduced. Not one succession marker is added. Hebrew narrative rules:
the subject remains the same until a new one is introduced.
2. Hebrew pronominal suffixes tie every action to the same man
Look at the suffixes:
- עָלָיו — “upon him” (v.21)
- מִלְּפָנָיו — “from before him” (v.22)
- אֵלָיו — “to him” (v.23)
- אֲבֹתָיו — “his fathers” (v.24)
These suffixes are all
3ms, and all refer back to the vile person introduced in v.21. If Daniel intended a new individual in v.24, he would have introduced him with a noun or title. He did not.
3. Greek translators confirm the same single-subject reading
The LXX and Theodotion—ancient Jewish interpreters—translate every verb in 11:21–24 as
3rd person singular, with
no subject change:
- ἀναστήσεται — “he shall arise”
- ἥξει — “he shall come”
- κρατήσει — “he shall take hold”
- ποιήσει — “he shall do”
- ἀναβήσεται — “he shall rise”
- κραταιωθήσεται — “he shall become strong”
- εἰσελεύσεται — “he shall enter”
- λογίσεται — “he shall devise”
And the Greek repeatedly uses:
- αὐτῷ — “to him”
- αὐτοῦ — “his”
- αὐτόν — “him”
The Greek translators—who knew Hebrew fluently—saw
one subject, not two.
4. Your Jeremiah 25:11 analogy fails because Daniel 11:21 is not a corporate title
You appealed to “king of Babylon” as a corporate singular. True—but irrelevant.
Jeremiah 25:11 uses a
title (“king of Babylon”), which can span multiple rulers.
Daniel 11:21 does
not use a title. It uses a
succession event:
- “In his place shall stand a vile person.”
Once Daniel identifies a specific successor, the grammar binds the subject to that individual until Daniel signals a change. He does not signal one until
v.36, not v.24.
Your analogy is grammatically possible but contextually impossible.
5. Your claim that “Hebrew grammar allows two individuals” is technically true but textually false
Yes, Hebrew
can shift subjects implicitly.
But Daniel 11:21–24 does
not do so.
Why?
Because:
- A new subject must be introduced with a noun/title.None appears.
- A new succession marker must appear.None appears.
- A new office must be reintroduced.None appears.
- The verb chain must break.It does not.
- The Greek translators must show a shift.They do not.
Your interpretation is grammatically
possible in the abstract, but
not permitted by the actual grammar of this passage.
Researcher, you’re appealing to hypothetical grammar, but Daniel uses
restrictive grammar—a succession marker, a continuous 3ms verb chain, repeated 3ms suffixes, and Greek confirmation—to keep the subject locked to
one man from v.21 through v.24. The text itself does not allow your subject shift; you have to import it from theology, not grammar.
God make you strong in your weakness 
