B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I understand that the phrase "and he shall confirm" originates from the hiphil form of "Gabar" written "we higbir". I lack knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew language. I am hoping the you Hebrew language scholars can shed light on my question. How does the KJV of OT translate "we higbir" to arrive at a male pronoun "he" confirming the covenant (berit) ? Then, attempting to locate the antecedent noun in verse 26 describing "he". Grammar rules (English) prohibit the use of an antecedent noun located in a prepositional phrase such as "people of the Prince to come". Therefore, the prince may not be used as the antecedent noun describing "he" in verse 27, which leaves one without an antecedent noun in verse 26. I have no problem with this result because Daniel 9:27' was sealed until the time of the end. I simply think many have wrested the scriptures to suit their beliefs, rather than being true to the intended words.

Is there any Hebrew grammar rule that would prevent the antecedent noun from being located in a prepositional phrase?

The "hiphil" form is a root augmented by the the two personal pronouns (PP) היא HI, 'he'; the prefixed one for the performer of the act, and the internal one, curtailed to a mere "i", for the beneficiary of the act. In case the actor is female an additional PP is added at the end, to wit, הגבירה HI-GB-I-R-AH.

For other persons the internal "I" is dropped, thus
HIGBARTIY = HI-GBAR-TIY, where TIY = ATIY = ANIY אני 'I'.
HIGBARTA = HI-GBAR-TA, where TA is ATAH אתה 'you (m.)'.
HIGBART = Hi-GBAR-T, where T is AT את 'you (f.)'.
HIGBARNU = HI-GBAR-NU, where NU is ANU אנו 'we'.
HIGBARTEM = HI-GBAR-TEM, where TEM is ATEM אתם 'you (m. p.)'
HIGBARTEN = HI-GBAR-TEN, where TEN is ATEN אתן 'you (f. p.)'
HIGBIYRU = HI-GB-IY-R-U, where U is HU, הוא here, 'they'.

The act GABAR is 'surmount, overcome, rise, amplify'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I Beleive wrote:I understand that the phrase "and he shall confirm" originates from the hiphil form of "Gabar" written "we higbir".

Correct as for the Hiphil. However, it doesn’t mean “he shall confirm”, rather “he’ll cause … to overpower” where the future is from the context, not the conjugation.

I Beleive wrote:How does the KJV of OT translate "we higbir" to arrive at a male pronoun "he" confirming the covenant (berit) ?

For many of us, the KJV is irrelevant. Translation is a different art, distinct from that action of analyzing a language in and of itself.

The conjugation of the verb is as a third person, masculine, singular, Qatal. That accounts for the “he”. Both the “leader to come” and “people” can take the third person singular masculine pronoun in Hebrew.

I Beleive wrote: Then, attempting to locate the antecedent noun in verse 26 describing "he". Grammar rules (English) prohibit the use of an antecedent noun located in a prepositional phrase such as "people of the Prince to come".

English is not only a different language, but from a different language family. Therefore, don’t apply the rules that fit English as fitting Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew.

I Beleive wrote:I simply think many have wrested the scriptures to suit their beliefs, rather than being true to the intended words.

In English, the term for that action is “eisagesis” whereas others say that the only valid analysis of the text is the use of “exegesis”. I fall in the latter camp.

I Beleive wrote:Is there any Hebrew grammar rule that would prevent the antecedent noun from being located in a prepositional phrase?

No, and I question whether such a rule exists for English too.

Karl W. Randolph.

I would translate it as, And he will cause a covenant to prevail to the many.

The antecedent of a pronoun in English or Hebrew can be in a prepositional phrase.
For example, They went to the store with Sam. He bought a bottle of water there. It is clear that Sam bought the water.

In both languages, the antecedent should normally be the closest previous noun that matches gender and number and makes sense.

Since this prophecy is given as a puzzle, I would not rule out the antecedent being a more distant noun. Zechariah's prophecies often use a more distant noun as an antecedent. Daniel, as far as I know, obeys the rule that a pronoun's antecedent is the closest previous noun that makes sense.