B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

‎ WTT Daniel 9:26
וְאַחֲרֵ֤י הַשָּׁבֻעִים֙ שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֔יִם יִכָּרֵ֥ת מָשִׁ֖יחַ וְאֵ֣ין ל֑וֹ וְהָעִ֙יר וְהַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙ וְקִצּ֣וֹ בַשֶּׁ֔טֶף וְעַד֙ קֵ֣ץ מִלְחָמָ֔ה נֶחֱרֶ֖צֶת שֹׁמֵמֽוֹת
27‎ וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים שָׁב֣וּעַ אֶחָ֑ד

I am talking with a guy on youtube who has a doctorate from Hebrew Univ. in Israel.
He says that the pronoun "he" in the first word of Dan 9:27 "and he shall confirm a covenant" must refer back to a definite noun and not an indefinite noun.
So the good doctor says that the "he" who confirms the covenant cannot refer back to נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙, "prince who is to come" but can only refer back to Messiah, which he and I both understand as the Messiah, and so a definite noun.

I gave him counter-examples, such as Exo 33:11 and Lev 27:28 where a pronoun's antecedent is not a definite noun even though there are definite nouns in the verse, but he says those are not the same syntax.

Is there such a rule that in some syntax the antecedent for a pronoun must be a definite noun?
and is he right that the antecedent of "he shall confirm a covenant" cannot be נָגִ֤יד, but must be Messiah?

Thank you.

In Daniel 9:26
הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא
נָגִיד describes the עַם, namely,
עַם נָגִיד = an overpowering nation

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

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

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.
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.

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.

The meaning of הגביר is “cause to overpower” or in good English, “to impose”. “One seven (seven years) he (עם נגיד הבא) will impose a covenant (treaty) for many, and half of the seven (3.5 years) he will cause sacrifice and offering to stop, …”

What we have here is a description of the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt from 66–73 AD.

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

Karl W. Randolph.

Indeed, הִגְבִּ֥יר contains two "he", one for the performer of the act גבר and the other one for the beneficiary of the act. However, it seems to me that the actor in this case is God, or the prevailing circumstances, and hence הִגְבִּ֥יר is formally hiphil, but is actually a niphal:
וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים = and many will adhere to the covenant.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

SteveMiller wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:56 pm ‎ WTT Daniel 9:26
וְאַחֲרֵ֤י הַשָּׁבֻעִים֙ שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֔יִם יִכָּרֵ֥ת מָשִׁ֖יחַ וְאֵ֣ין ל֑וֹ וְהָעִ֙יר וְהַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙ וְקִצּ֣וֹ בַשֶּׁ֔טֶף וְעַד֙ קֵ֣ץ מִלְחָמָ֔ה נֶחֱרֶ֖צֶת שֹׁמֵמֽוֹת
27‎ וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים שָׁב֣וּעַ אֶחָ֑ד

I am talking with a guy on youtube who has a doctorate from Hebrew Univ. in Israel.
He says that the pronoun "he" in the first word of Dan 9:27 "and he shall confirm a covenant" must refer back to a definite noun and not an indefinite noun.
So the good doctor says that the "he" who confirms the covenant cannot refer back to נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙, "prince who is to come" but can only refer back to Messiah, which he and I both understand as the Messiah, and so a definite noun.

I gave him counter-examples, such as Exo 33:11 and Lev 27:28 where a pronoun's antecedent is not a definite noun even though there are definite nouns in the verse, but he says those are not the same syntax.

Is there such a rule that in some syntax the antecedent for a pronoun must be a definite noun?
and is he right that the antecedent of "he shall confirm a covenant" cannot be נָגִ֤יד, but must be Messiah?

Thank you.

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.

This description also fits the era of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
And in 1Maccabees it is said that the altar was not active for about 3 years.
And in the "The Jewish War" of Flavius Josephus it is said that it was not active for 3.5 years.

We need to look at the complete prophesy to get an idea of when was meant.

It started with the timeline of 70 sevens, universally recognized as referring to 490 years.

That period was to start when the command went out to rebuild Jerusalem.

That was not at the time of Cyrus, as his command was merely to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

Nehemiah was given the command to rebuild Jerusalem the city. So this final seven years refers to a time from 483–490 years after Nehemiah.

With these sketchy details so far, it could not refer to the Maccabees as they came far too early to fit the situation of the final seven years of war.

Within those 490 years, there are three subsets of years mentioned.

The first is for 7 sevens is from the beginning of the 490 years until an anointed leader. He’s not named.

The second is for 62 sevens, or 434 years.

After 62 sevens, or from 435–440 years, Messiah will be cut off (killed). The exact year is not given.

Then there is one seven when the people of the coming leader destroy the city, the temple, impose a treaty, stop sacrifices and offerings in connection of idols with wings (at that time, the Roman battle standards were treated as idols, the soldiers were commanded to worship them, and the battle standards were eagles with wings).

If the first two subsets are consecutive, then Messiah was cut off during the final seven year period, or during the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea.

If the first two subsets are concurrent, i.e. start at the same time, then Messiah was cut off about 50 years before the end of the prophesy.

Another indication that the first two subsets were concurrent is that Nehemiah started rebuilding immediately after getting the command to rebuild, not following a 49 year delay after getting the command to rebuild.

Taking all these clues together, we get the picture that only the Roman defeat of the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD fits all the details of the prophesy listed in Daniel 9:26b–27.

Karl W. Randolph.

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

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 9:54 pm יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ may well mean the coming to an end of the monarchy.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

An interesting perspective.