Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

[Isaac Fried]

Or the priesthood: Lev. 16:32
הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לְכַהֵן תַּחַת אָבִיו
NIV: "The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Or the priesthood: Lev. 16:32
הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לְכַהֵן תַּחַת אָבִיו
NIV: "The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

I think that's how most take it. Onias III, if I remember correctly.

[SteveMiller]

nagid is not the referent here, there referent is the noun phrase נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙. That makes out definite. Not a prince, but the coming prince.

Thanks Jonathan. I agree.
What would you say about his rule that the antecedent must be a definite noun. Suppose instead of "עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙", the text just said נָגִ֤יד. Could nagid still be the antecedent of "he shall confirm"?

[SteveMiller]

In Daniel 9:27, there is no subject for the verb והגביר, rather, because it starts with ו it points back to the last subject in verse 26. The full name of the subject of the verb is עם נגיד הבא which is a singular masculine noun.

Thanks Karl. I didn't know that the antecedent for a waw consecutive needed to be the last subject.
Could נגיד be considered the last subject because it is the subject of ‎ הַבָּא ?

The antecedent for והגביר is not Messiah. The ו indicates that it must refer to a concrete noun, not something that is undefined.

That is very helpful. So the good doctor is right. The waw consecutive makes this refer back to a concrete noun (what the doctor calls a definite noun). And nagid haba, as well as am nagid haba are both concrete nouns since they are defined.
I would say that Messiah is also concrete because of the previous description about him, i.e. he will come after 69 weeks, and be cut off.

[SteveMiller]

1. The word משיח is not definite in the verse.

He considers that Messiah is definite like a name, or because of the foregoing description of the Messiah in the previous verses. Does the antecedent in this case need to be a definite noun?

2. Just by reading the context, we can see that it refers to נגיד.
Because no matter how each one sees this משיח (and let's avoid theological talks), we all see him as the positive figure in the text.

Yes, we both agree that the Messiah is positive.

But in verse 27, the "He" is not a positive figure at all, but he unpure the altar.
So I don't know how one can link this "He" to the משיח.

He thinks, like many Christians, that this refers to Jesus ending the sacrifices.

[SteveMiller]

יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ may well mean the coming to an end of the monarchy.

Thanks Isaac, Hadn't the monarchy had already ended with the captivity?

Or the priesthood: Lev. 16:32
הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לְכַהֵן תַּחַת אָבִיו
NIV: "The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest"

Could a high priest be described as ‎ מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד ?

[Jason Hare]

Could a high priest be described as ‎ מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד ?

My reading in Jewish commentaries generally point to three different characters in this passage. There is מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, there is מָשִׁיחַ, and then there is the נָגִיד of עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא. Three different people, not one.

Order to restore Jerusalem.
  + Seven Weeks
Arrival of Mashiach Nagid.
  + Sixty-Two Weeks (Rebuilding of the City)
Mashiach excised. Beginning of war.
  + One Week (Covenant confirmed - 1/2 of week)
End of sacrifice. Desolation of temple. City destroyed by the people of the coming Nagid. End of war.

The word מָשִׁיחַ was not a confirmed title of the coming king ("the Messiah") when the Tanach was being composed.

[SteveMiller]

My reading in Jewish commentaries generally point to three different characters in this passage. There is מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, there is מָשִׁיחַ, and then there is the נָגִיד of עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא. Three different people, not one.

Order to restore Jerusalem.

Thanks Jason. I am now looking at the Stone Tanach notes from Rashi. The notes are sketchy.
It doesn't say what the order to restore Jerusalem was.
What was it? I understand it as Cyrus' order, but obviously Rashi is taking it as something else.

  + Seven Weeks
Arrival of Mashiach Nagid.

Stone Tanach says Mashiach Nagid is Cyrus.
How is he 49 years after the order to restore Jerusalem?

  + Sixty-Two Weeks (Rebuilding of the City)
Mashiach excised. Beginning of war.

Rashi says the Mashiach here is Agrippa, the last Jewish king.
That seems far fetched because Agrippa is not of the line of kings.
I understand you take it as the last High Priest.
As far as I know, the stand-alone noun Mashiach never refers to the high priest. When it refers to the HP, it says ‎ הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ (Lev. 4:3 WTT).

  + One Week (Covenant confirmed - 1/2 of week)
End of sacrifice. Desolation of temple. City destroyed by the people of the coming Nagid. End of war.

We both agree the people here is the Romans.
I understand the nagid here as a ruler who will come in the future and confirm a 7 year convenant with Israel and break it after 3.5 years.

The word מָשִׁיחַ was not a confirmed title of the coming king ("the Messiah") when the Tanach was being composed.

I agree. It could refer to the Messiah or to a king.

[ducky]

Hi Steve,

There is no rule except for the clarity of the text.
a verb like that can be linked to any "focused" noun.

****
The word משיח here is not definite.
ore than that, it is not even one person.
There is one משיח in verse 25, and then there is another משיח, hundreds of years later (verse 26).
It is not the same man.

********************
The word משיח does not act as a "definite noun" in the Bible.
(This thing did happen later)

*******************************************
Seeing it as your friend does is a problem.
First, the calculation doesn't really fit.
And to make it close, He needs to read the text wrong, Plus - he needs to start the counting from an unknown point of time to Daniel (see above in one of the posts).

Also,
Even if we do go with his way, then the situation would become ridiculous.
Because when one sees it like that, it is like saying that if he would come to Daniel right after he got the explanation from Gabriel, and would ask him: "When?".
Daniel would say: "I don't know".
It is like Daniel got an equation of:
?+49+434+7=?
And what is the worth of all of the calculated numbers if there is not known starting point?
And if one sees this starting point in an unknown time (to Daniel) that would happen in the future, then he (and Daniel) actually don't know anything.
So it would be that Daniel started his conversation with Gabriel clueless, and also ended it clueless. It's just ridiculous.

***
The text doesn't present the "He" in verse 27 as a positive figure and as a positive act. The same words and acts are written in 11:31, or in 12:11 (And by the way, 1290 is like 3.5 years more or less.)
It is an act of un-puring the altar.

***
(I didn't follow all of the posts so I don't know if I missed something)

[Isaac Fried]

Steve asks

Could a high priest be described as מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד ?

As I see it מָשִׁ֣יחַ is not related here to נָגִ֔יד.
כו. וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא וְקִצּוֹ בַשֶּׁטֶף וְעַד קֵץ מִלְחָמָה נֶחֱרֶצֶת שֹׁמֵמוֹת. כז. וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים
means:
יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ = there will come to be a final end to the being anointed.
וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא = and the city and the holy will be destroyed by an invading overpowering nation.
וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים = And many will adhere to the covenant.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com