In Daniel 11:37, is it possible to translate god of his father with "god" lowercase in the singular form?

Question

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. (Daniel 11:37 - King James Version)

‎וְעַל־אֱלֹהֵ֤י אֲבֹתָיו֙ לֹ֣א יָבִ֔ין וְעַל־חֶמְדַּ֥ת נָשִׁ֛ים וְעַֽל־כָּל־אֱל֖וֹהַּ לֹ֣א יָבִ֑ין כִּ֥י עַל־כֹּ֖ל יִתְגַּדָּֽל׃ (Daniel 11:37 - Leningrad Codex)

I know that there is some verse in the Old Testament which contains the plural and the translation is not "God" in uppercase and neither "gods". For example 1 Kings 11:3, where we can find "god" and "goddess" translated from the plural construct. Is it possible that the translation can be "god" lowercase in the singular form? Am I wrong or is it a matter of the accent < placed under the letter of the lemma "אֱלֹהֵ֤י" which makes the difference?

Answer 1

To start, here is a typical translation of 1 Kings 11:33, which the OP rightly cites as a case where elohim is translated as the singular but uncapitalized "god."

For they have forsaken me and have bowed down to Astarte, goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh, god of Moab, and Milcom, god of the Ammonites. They have not walked in my ways or done what is right in my eyes, according to my statutes and my ordinances, as David his father did. (NABRE)

Here the reference is clearly to one deity in each case, so "god" is the correct translation. In the case of the OP's quote, we should consider the context. The preceding verse reads:

36 “The king shall do as he wills, exalting himself and making himself greater than any god; he shall utter dreadful blasphemies against the God of gods...

If, as many commentators believe, this is a reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then the question becomes, does the "God of his ancestors" in vs. 37 refer to the Hebrew God, or to a pagan god/s? We can rule out the former, so the King James Version (KJV) is wrong to capitalize "God." A note in the NABRE version, which translates elohim as "gods" here, explains:

Antiochus favored the cult of Zeus. Daniel takes this to imply the neglect of all other gods, although this does not appear to have been the case.

In conclusion, although elohim may sometimes be correctly translated as either "god" or "gods" in this case the correct translation is "gods." In KJV, which the OP cites, "God" is wrongly translated because elohim here does not refer to the Hebrew deity.

Answer 2

Many versions translate אֱלֹהֵ֤י (plural) and אֱל֖וֹהַּ (singular) in Dan 11:37 with lower case, eg:

• NIV: He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.
• ESV: He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.
• BSB: He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the one desired by women, nor for any other god, because he will magnify himself above them all.
• NASB: And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will boast against them all.
• CSB: He will not show regard for the gods of his ancestors, the god desired by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.
• HCSB: He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.
• ASV: Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.
• ISV: He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women—he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.
• ... + many more

I believe these versions are correct in so translating these Hebrew nouns.

Answer 3

Paul references this passage of Daniel and describes Emperor Titus:

[2Th 2:1-12 NASB20] [1] Now we ask you, brothers [and sisters,] regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, [2] that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. [3] No one is to deceive you in any way! For [it will not come] unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, [4] who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. [5] Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? [6] And you know what restrains [him] now, so that he will be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains [will do so] until He is removed. [8] Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; [9] [that is,] the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, [10] and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved. [11] For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, [12] in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

For a full exposition from an NT perspective, please see:

https://www.revelationrevolution.org/2-thessalonians-2-1-9-a-preterist-commentary-the-man-of-lawlessness-revealed/

So to answer your question, yes, "gods" is the right idea.