Daniel Kim wrote
here is my translation.
"after 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off but not shall be to city and sanctuary. the people of prince shall be destroyed at the flood like coming end. which will be until the end of the determined desolating war." ==> this is my understanding.
please tell me if my interpretation has any problem in grammar or in context.
Below is a translation of Daniel 9:26, 27 and a grammatical analysis from my book: When Was the Book of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, and Historical Approach
, pp. 205, 206. The whole chapter is a translation of, and grammatical analysis of passages that have been applied to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The conclusion is that this king is not referred to or alluded to anywhere in the book of Daniel. The sources of this king are few and contradictory, and they are full of propaganda. Therefore, the history of this king uncertain. Even Bible translations, such as NIV have unjustly manipulated some verses in order to fit Antiochus.
DANIEL 9:26, 27
26 After sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off and have nothing. And the people of a leader who will come will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will come by the flood. Until the end there will be war, and desolations have been decided. 27 He will let the covenant prevail for the many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. And upon the wings of abominations the one causing desolation will come. And this will be until the complete destruction, because that which is decided will gush forth upon the one becoming desolate.
Let us look at the grammar and syntax. Some clauses are not easy to translate because they lack verbs. What is clear is that the city and the holy place would be destroyed and become desolate, and both verses say that someone has decided upon the desolations. I will now in turn analyze each clause.
And the people of a leader that will come will destroy the city and the holy place.
This clause is clear and unambiguous.
And its end will come by the flood.
The author was fond of nominal clauses where no verbs are found. This is a nominal clause with the words, “and its end by the flood.” When we translate nominal clauses, we must add the verb “to be,” and then we get “and its end will be by the flood,” or better, “and its end will come by the flood.” I take the Hebrew preposition be
in the instrumental sense, but the sense could also be local with the meaning “in the flood.” In 11:22, fighting armies are described as “the flood,” and the meaning is probably the same in 9:27: the end of Jerusalem would be caused by an army that would come like a flood.
Until the end there will be war.
Again we have a nominal clause, “and until end war,” and we supply the future form of “to be.”
And desolations have been decided.
Here we have the noun “desolations” and the passive participle of “decide.”
And upon the wings of abominations the one causing desolation will come.
This is again a nominal clause: “and on wing abominations causing desolations.” The clause has been translated in widely divergent ways, and one reason for this is that the translators have tried to make it fit the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
And this will be until the complete destruction, because that which is decided will gush forth upon the one becoming desolate.
The first clause is nominal, and “this will be” is supplied. The last clause starts with a participle in the niphal stem preceded by the conjunction waw
. The waw
is viewed as expressing the reason for the previous statement, thus introducing a causal clause starting with “because.” The last clause has the finite verb natak
(gush forth/pour out), and its subject is “that which has been decided.” Thus, the text says “that which has been decided will gush forth upon the one becoming desolate (shomem
).” The basic sense of the verb shamam
is “to be uninhabited; be deserted,” and the question is: To what does the qal participle of this verb at the end of verse 27 refer? Several translators apply the word to the one causing desolation; thus, NJB translates verse 27c as “until the end, until the doom assigned to the devastator.” There are important reasons to reject this interpretation. True, the verb shamam
occurs two times in verse 27, and in the first instance I translate it as “the one causing desolation,” which means that the reference is to the desolator. However, the reason for this translation is that the verb is a piel participle, which can be given a causative force in translation. In contrast to this, the last word in 9:27 is a qal participle, which has no resultative (and in translation no causative) force. This stem simply signals the basic meaning of the verb without any modification, and therefore the meaning is “being/will become desolate.” Another reason for speaking against taking the qal participle as the desolator is that in verse 26 harats
(“decide”) is used as a niphal participle. What has been decided are desolations (expressed by the qal participle of shamam
in the plural), “desolations have been decided.” In verse 27 the same niphal participle is used, and the rendering is “what has been decided will gush forth upon the desolation” (expressed by the qal participle of shamam
in the singular). The words are a part of a prophecy referring to the future, and therefore I use the expression “the one becoming desolate.”