Bobcat, again a few observations for what they are worth. The first part is a repetition of my post in a previous thread because I think it is important.
Modern scholars study the book of Daniel in fragmentary form. I personally view the book as a unit and study it as such. Daniel 11&12 covers a period from the time of Darius the Mede (Dan. 11:1) to the resurrection (Dan. 12:2). Few modern scholars would acknowledge the fact. In sharp contrast to the book of the Maccabees, Daniel makes no direct mention of Hellenistic Reform, and the angel delivering the final vision, actually dooms a Jewish uprising (cf. Dan. 11:14).
A few conservative scholars view Dan. 11:40-45 as referring to the time of the Antichrist. In addition, Jesus Christ would reject the Maccabean interpretation of "the disgusting thing causing desolation." As a first fulfillment, he applied it to the Romans, not the Seleucid kings (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luk. 21:20, 21).
*
The book of Daniel concentrates on dynasties and not individuals.
Dan. 2 : Head of Gold, Nebuchadnezzar > Babylonian dynasty, etc.
Dan. 7 : Beasts > dynasties
Dan. 8 : Ram > Medo-Persia; He-goat > Greece.
Dan. 11 > Seleucids/Ptolemies (dynasties), with individual kings and their actions highlighted:
In the first half of the prophecy mention is made of only three kings of the north (one in vv. 5–9; his sons, vv. 10–12; a third, vv. 13–19) and three kings of the south (the first, vv. 5 and 6; the “branch,” vv. 7–9; and the king, vv. 10–15), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (v. 10) to the king indefinitely mentioned in v. 11, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in vv. 9–15 is different from or is identical with “the branch of her roots” (v. 7).
Above shows that the prophecy does not concentrate on individual historical personages, but only places in view the king of the south and the king of the north as representatives of the power of these two kingdoms. Of these kings special deeds and undertakings are indeed mentioned, which point to definite persons; e.g., of the king of the north, that he was one of the princes of the king of the south, and founded a greater dominion than his (v. 5); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (v. 6); afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (v. 17), and other special circumstances in the wars between the two, which are to be regarded not merely as individualizing portraitures, but denote concrete facts which have verified themselves in history. It is my opinion that these specifics do indeed establish the view that the prophecy consists of a series of predictions of historical fact. These features of the prophecy do find their actual fulfillment in history and do coincide with historical reality.
*
For those that do not like the chronological jumps, unfortunately, this is a characteristic of the book. Jerome commented on the drastically abbreviated Persian history of Dan. 11:2: “the Spirit of prophecy was not concerned about preserving historical detail but in summarizing only the most important matters.” [1]
My understanding of Chapter 8: Starts with the Medes and Persians (ram) being destroyed by Greece (he-goat) and ends with the destruction of the small horn or fierce king during the end time (cf. Dan. 8:17, 19). Some big chronological jumps involved there.
My understanding of Chapter 10, 11: Starts with Alexander and ends with the destruction of the king of the north during the end time (cf. Dan. 11:40, 45). The conclusion of the book deals with the resurrection (cf. Dan. 12:2, 13). Again some huge chronological jumps.
And Bobcat, the text of Dan. 11 does produce a term which would indicate a transition. My source applies the primary fulfillment to “Hellenistic Diadochian kings,” but a secondary fulfillment is a distinct possibility, if one follows Jesus’ reasoning in Matt. 24 and Mark 13.
For the time appointed. lammou`ad: Daniel (11:27, 29, 35) uses the phrase “for/at the time appointed.” In all three cases it heralds a regime change. The noun mou`ad is related to the verb → y`d, with which it is also explicitly associated in Ex. 30:36; 2 Sam. 20:5. The verb y`d refers either to the making of an appointment between two equal partners, or to such action taken by one person over against another of lower standing; as a rule both cases refer to a meeting at a specified time, and occasionally at a specific place. ya`a? can also mean appoint, designate, appear or come, gather, agree or to have an appointment, appear or reveal oneself. See HOLL. All the West Semitic languages attest a noun m`d. Arab. maw`id means “place/time of an appointment,” Aram. mo`a?a’ means “appointed time, festival” (TDOT, vol. VIII, p. 168).
Transmission of power : Related term sama? ya? is used about 20 times in the OT; often it clearly conveys the idea of transmitting something from a person to another person or a sacrificial animal. In each of these cases where more precise information is given it would appear that there is some transmission involved in the act of placing hands on animal or person; the same may be said of the commissioning of Levites or Joshua. It is therefore appropriate to see here a transmission of power. The same terminology is used later for rabbinic ordination, and is explained as the pouring of the personality “as from one vessel into another.” See TDOT, vol. V, pp. 423, 424.
Thus, in Daniel 11 the phrase lammou`ad “for/at the time appointed” [“for/at the appointed time”] would indicate the kiing of the north having undergone a transition. The end would be postponed until this king of the north has taken his stand (cf. Dan. 8:19; Dan. 11:27, 35). See also TDOT, vol. VIII, p. 172.
If “leader of the covenant” (Dan. 11:22; cf. Dan. 9:26, 27) does not refer to Jesus, the Messiah, it would be an unreliable, and utterly worthless history lesson.
[TDOT = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament]
[HOLL = Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament]
[1] St. Jerome, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, translated into English by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., p. 92.