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

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
ducky
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Post by ducky »

Steve,
This thing refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah
from that era to Cyrus there are close to 49 years (52).
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

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

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:14 am
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.
The monarchy ended about 70 years before this prophesy was made. The prophesy refers to centuries after Nehemiah.
SteveMiller wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:40 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:04 pm 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 noun נגיד is part of a series of nouns that are in construct one after another, in this case the middle one.
SteveMiller wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:40 pm 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.
The text says “following 62 sevens”, in other words, between 62 and 63 sevens. It doesn’t say 69 sevens. 69 sevens is a construct not supported by the Hebrew text.

Messiah is also concrete, but he’s not the last noun antecedent to הגביר.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 11:46 am
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:30 pm 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.
I think that’s pretty obvious from the passage.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 11:46 am… the order to restore Jerusalem was.
What was it? I understand it as Cyrus' order,…
According to Ezra 1:2, Cyrus’ order was merely for rebuilding the temple, not the city. This prophesy references the rebuilding of the city.

According to Nehemiah, when he arrived in Jerusalem, it consisted only of the temple, a few buildings to support the temple and a government post, the rest was ruins.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 11:46 am
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:30 pm   + 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.
From where do you get the idea that this is a ruler that will come in the future and confirm a 7 year covenant?

• the prophesy is about a 70 sevens period of time (490 years) and the seven years that the Romans took to suppress the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD ended that period. To be consistent with the prophesy, that means that Nehemiah was given the command to rebuild Jerusalem 490 years before 73 AD, or 417 BC (assuming that our present understanding of the dates is correct).

• the “people of the coming leader” was twice fulfilled for the Roman army—the general who started the suppression and the general who completed it both later became emperor. נגיד is often used for a political, national leader like a king or emperor.

• the word הגביר was mistranslated in the JKV and everyone afterwards is scared to correct it. It is the causative of גבר which has the meaning “to overpower”, making this use “he (the people of the coming leader) will cause a covenant to overpower…” This is the imposition of a covenant, not the confirmation of a covenant willingly negotiated between equals that can be confirmed.

These and more were all fulfilled in the past to us and there is no indication in Scripture in any prophesy that there will be another seven year period that fits the same pattern.

It’s interesting that a book written during and just after the Babylonian exile could be so accurate in its details concerning the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD. According to Dr. Rolf Furuli in an earlier message on this forum, the Aramaic of Daniel is consistent with the Aramaic of the Babylonian period.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

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

Post by SteveMiller »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm Messiah is also concrete, but he’s not the last noun antecedent to הגביר.
Thanks Karl
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm According to Ezra 1:2, Cyrus’ order was merely for rebuilding the temple, not the city. This prophesy references the rebuilding of the city.
Cyrus' order was for both city and temple:
Isa 44: 28 that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm From where do you get the idea that this is a ruler that will come in the future and confirm a 7 year covenant?
It says the prince who will come, so definitely future wrt Daniel.
In Revelation there is the first beast, usually called antichrist, and there are 7 years divided into 2 halves of 3.5 yrs each.
There is no covenant in Revelation, so that is a weakness of my view.
This 7 year covenant may be referred to in Dan 11:22 the nagid of the covenant, and the league in the next verse.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm • the prophesy is about a 70 sevens period of time (490 years) and the seven years that the Romans took to suppress the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD ended that period. To be consistent with the prophesy, that means that Nehemiah was given the command to rebuild Jerusalem 490 years before 73 AD, or 417 BC (assuming that our present understanding of the dates is correct).
That is straightforwardly laid out in contrast to most theories.
So according to your view the last week is 66-73 AD.
And according to your view the Messiah was cut off 49 yrs before that: 66 AD - 49 yrs = 17 AD.
Is that your view?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm • the word הגביר was mistranslated in the JKV and everyone afterwards is scared to correct it. It is the causative of גבר which has the meaning “to overpower”, making this use “he (the people of the coming leader) will cause a covenant to overpower…” This is the imposition of a covenant, not the confirmation of a covenant willingly negotiated between equals that can be confirmed.
Thanks Karl! I believe you are correct about the meaning of higbir. The only other hiphil use is Ps 12:5, which means "overpower", like you said, and not "confirm".
That is very helpful.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

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

Post by kwrandolph »

SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm According to Ezra 1:2, Cyrus’ order was merely for rebuilding the temple, not the city. This prophesy references the rebuilding of the city.
Cyrus' order was for both city and temple:
Isa 44: 28 that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
But we see in Ezra that the specific command was for rebuilding the temple. We see also that Jerusalem was again made the capital of Judea. Except for a few houses to support those two functions, the city itself was still a heap of ruins until the time of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was given the command to make a city out of that heap of ruins.

By having the temple rebuilt and Jerusalem again made the center of political authority, Cyrus did start the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But the specific command to make a city out of the ruins was given to Nehemiah.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm From where do you get the idea that this is a ruler that will come in the future and confirm a 7 year covenant?
It says the prince who will come, so definitely future wrt Daniel.
Which prince? There were more than one who came after Daniel.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pmIn Revelation there is the first beast, usually called antichrist, and there are 7 years divided into 2 halves of 3.5 yrs each.
There is no covenant in Revelation, so that is a weakness of my view.
This 7 year covenant may be referred to in Dan 11:22 the nagid of the covenant, and the league in the next verse.
First of all, there’s the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. “Beast” in apocalyptic prophesy refers to a political system, a country, not an individual. That’s illustrated in other parts of Daniel. Important individuals connected with the beasts or branches of the political system are pictured as horns on the beasts.

You’re right, there’s no time period connected to that political system.

If I remember correctly, the person mentioned in Daniel 11:22 is Antiochus Epiphanes who was responsible for Hanukkah.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm • the prophesy is about a 70 sevens period of time (490 years) and the seven years that the Romans took to suppress the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD ended that period. To be consistent with the prophesy, that means that Nehemiah was given the command to rebuild Jerusalem 490 years before 73 AD, or 417 BC (assuming that our present understanding of the dates is correct).
That is straightforwardly laid out in contrast to most theories.
So according to your view the last week is 66-73 AD.
And according to your view the Messiah was cut off 49 yrs before that: 66 AD - 49 yrs = 17 AD.
Is that your view?
No. Messiah would be cut off 50–55 years before 73 AD. Or more accurately, 50–55 years before the end of the 490 years. We’re not sure of the exact date, because the prophesy didn’t give an exact year, and the dates the historians give can be off by a few years.

Yes, the last seven is presently listed by historians as having occurred from 66–73 AD. That means, according to present understanding of dates, the 490 years ended in 73 AD.
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm • the word הגביר was mistranslated in the JKV and everyone afterwards is scared to correct it. It is the causative of גבר which has the meaning “to overpower”, making this use “he (the people of the coming leader) will cause a covenant to overpower…” This is the imposition of a covenant, not the confirmation of a covenant willingly negotiated between equals that can be confirmed.
Thanks Karl! I believe you are correct about the meaning of higbir. The only other hiphil use is Ps 12:5, which means "overpower", like you said, and not "confirm".
That is very helpful.
This illustrates why we need to be very careful in our study of Scripture. There are plenty of plausible sounding theories, but we need to limit ourselves to what the text actually says.

I’ve seen different theories concerning Daniel 9:24–27, but I cannot find textual support for many of them.

We also need to be careful not to take verses out of their contexts and apply them to other contexts where they don’t belong.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

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

Post by Jason Hare »

Do we think this conversation can be had without getting into personal theology? I really am trying to just stay out of it. Please, try to tread lightly. This passage is clearly controversial. Let's not try to use it as a proselytization springboard. We all have different views of Messiah and such, and it'd be nice if we didn't get into polemical wars on these subjects.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

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

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 am Do we think this conversation can be had without getting into personal theology?
What do you count as “personal theology”? Like when Isaac Fried speculated “may well mean the coming to an end of the monarchy.”? And you responded “An interesting perspective.”? Or where you wrote, “I think that's how most take it. Onias III, if I remember correctly.”? How are those specific examples not “personal theology”?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 amI really am trying to just stay out of it. Please, try to tread lightly. This passage is clearly controversial. Let's not try to use it as a proselytization springboard.
For me, the questions are:

• What does the text actually say?

• Can the text be correlated to history?

• What about various theories concerning the text? Can they be supported by what the text actually says?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 amWe all have different views of Messiah and such, and it'd be nice if we didn't get into polemical wars on these subjects.
Who’s in a “polemical war” on this subject?

Let’s take the common theory that Messiah would be cut off after 69 sevens. That means that Messiah would be killed during the 70th seven, which was also a time of war and destruction. What textual support is there for that theory?

Are verses 26b and 27 descriptions of separate events, or of the same event? Does not the form of והגביר indicate that verse 27 is a continuation of verse 26b?

How closely does this prophesy correlate to history? Connected to this is how much can we trust the interpretations of modern historians? Take for example the date of Jesus’ birth—originally set for year 1, now many historians conclude was year 7 BC, is that the last word or can we conclude that even that date could be revised by new discoveries? What about other dates posited by modern historians?

What about the time periods mentioned in verses 25–26a, are they consecutive (as apparently most people interpret them) or concurrent? What evidence for either is there in the text? Can those two time periods be correlated to history? To other accounts in Tanakh?

I personally didn’t mind the excursion into the book of Revelation, because there are theories that connect it to one interpretation of verse 27. However “beast” is not interpreted in Revelation, so we look to where it is interpreted, and that is in other chapters of Daniel, therefore take the interpretation from Daniel. But when we take the interpretation from Daniel, how does that not impact those theories of a connection between Revelation and Daniel 9:27?

I can go on and on, but all of these questions I raise are derived from the three questions that I list above.

I don’t see how any of these questions are polemical or a “proselytization springboard”.

And I don’t mind you adding your own personal opinions, your “personal theology”, to the discussion.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Post by ducky »

Without getting to a theological issue...

The counting can start from two options:
1. The time of Jeremiah (which this whole thing is based on that).
2. The current time (When Gabriel told this message to Daniel).

******
Counting it from Nehemiah would mean that:
1. The prophecy is a vain message for Daniel (as I said before).
And it would be funny to see it like that after it was told to Daniel a few times that he was about to understand everything. But after that view, it seems that he didn't know a thing about any time.
All he knows is that somewhen in the future, there is someone who'll start the counting, but if Daniel doesn't know when is that "somewhen", then he doesn't really know a thing.
The counting must start from a known point to Daniel - the man who got the message.

2. The text clearly split the 69 sevens to 7+62.
But if we count it from Nehemiah, It means that we ignore this split as if there is none at all.
So why didn't the text just wrote 69 sevens?
The text doesn't write that, but it writes 7 until a משיח and then 62 until another event in another משיח.
But those who count it from Nehemiah, just ignore it and read it just as if it was written 69.
But the text does split it - so why ignoring it?

**********************
David Hunter
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

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

Post by SteveMiller »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 11:16 pm
SteveMiller wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:06 pmIn Revelation there is the first beast, usually called antichrist, and there are 7 years divided into 2 halves of 3.5 yrs each.
There is no covenant in Revelation, so that is a weakness of my view.
This 7 year covenant may be referred to in Dan 11:22 the nagid of the covenant, and the league in the next verse.
First of all, there’s the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. “Beast” in apocalyptic prophesy refers to a political system, a country, not an individual. That’s illustrated in other parts of Daniel. Important individuals connected with the beasts or branches of the political system are pictured as horns on the beasts.
That's a perspective I had never thought of before. I like that you have original thoughts.
I understand that beasts are usually symbols of kingdoms, but can be kings also.
The Messiah is the lion of the tribe of Judah.
The 2nd beast in Rev 13:11-17, the one with horns like a lamb, is clearly an individual. He is called the false prophet in 16:13; 19:20 & 20:10.
Dan 8:21 says that the rough goat is the king of Greece and the great horn is the 1st king.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:31 pm No. Messiah would be cut off 50–55 years before 73 AD. Or more accurately, 50–55 years before the end of the 490 years. We’re not sure of the exact date, because the prophesy didn’t give an exact year, and the dates the historians give can be off by a few years.
who was the Messiah who was cut off between 18 AD - 23 AD?
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

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

Post by SteveMiller »

ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:53 am Without getting to a theological issue...

The counting can start from two options:
1. The time of Jeremiah (which this whole thing is based on that).
2. The current time (When Gabriel told this message to Daniel).

******
Counting it from Nehemiah would mean that:
1. The prophecy is a vain message for Daniel (as I said before).
And it would be funny to see it like that after it was told to Daniel a few times that he was about to understand everything. But after that view, it seems that he didn't know a thing about any time.
All he knows is that somewhen in the future, there is someone who'll start the counting, but if Daniel doesn't know when is that "somewhen", then he doesn't really know a thing.
The counting must start from a known point to Daniel - the man who got the message.
That is an excellent point, David. Thank you very much.
I had never heard that argument, and it is valid. Gabriel told Daniel that he would understand the message.
I think the word to restore and build Jerusalem is the word from Cyrus, which was monumental, and which would shortly follow.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:53 am 2. The text clearly split the 69 sevens to 7+62.
But if we count it from Nehemiah, It means that we ignore this split as if there is none at all.
So why didn't the text just wrote 69 sevens?
The text doesn't write that, but it writes 7 until a משיח and then 62 until another event in another משיח.
But those who count it from Nehemiah, just ignore it and read it just as if it was written 69.
But the text does split it - so why ignoring it?
9:24 says that one of the purposes of the 70 weeks is to seal the vision and prophet.
It may be that after the first 7 weeks the writing of the Old Testament was closed.
Or the 7 weeks could be the completion of the building of the temple or of the rebuilding of the city or of all 3.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

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

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:30 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 am Do we think this conversation can be had without getting into personal theology?
What do you count as “personal theology”? Like when Isaac Fried speculated “may well mean the coming to an end of the monarchy.”? And you responded “An interesting perspective.”? Or where you wrote, “I think that's how most take it. Onias III, if I remember correctly.”? How are those specific examples not “personal theology”?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 amI really am trying to just stay out of it. Please, try to tread lightly. This passage is clearly controversial. Let's not try to use it as a proselytization springboard.
For me, the questions are:

• What does the text actually say?

• Can the text be correlated to history?

• What about various theories concerning the text? Can they be supported by what the text actually says?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 amWe all have different views of Messiah and such, and it'd be nice if we didn't get into polemical wars on these subjects.
Who’s in a “polemical war” on this subject?

Let’s take the common theory that Messiah would be cut off after 69 sevens. That means that Messiah would be killed during the 70th seven, which was also a time of war and destruction. What textual support is there for that theory?

Are verses 26b and 27 descriptions of separate events, or of the same event? Does not the form of והגביר indicate that verse 27 is a continuation of verse 26b?

How closely does this prophesy correlate to history? Connected to this is how much can we trust the interpretations of modern historians? Take for example the date of Jesus’ birth—originally set for year 1, now many historians conclude was year 7 BC, is that the last word or can we conclude that even that date could be revised by new discoveries? What about other dates posited by modern historians?

What about the time periods mentioned in verses 25–26a, are they consecutive (as apparently most people interpret them) or concurrent? What evidence for either is there in the text? Can those two time periods be correlated to history? To other accounts in Tanakh?

I personally didn’t mind the excursion into the book of Revelation, because there are theories that connect it to one interpretation of verse 27. However “beast” is not interpreted in Revelation, so we look to where it is interpreted, and that is in other chapters of Daniel, therefore take the interpretation from Daniel. But when we take the interpretation from Daniel, how does that not impact those theories of a connection between Revelation and Daniel 9:27?

I can go on and on, but all of these questions I raise are derived from the three questions that I list above.

I don’t see how any of these questions are polemical or a “proselytization springboard”.

And I don’t mind you adding your own personal opinions, your “personal theology”, to the discussion.

Karl W. Randolph.
Please imagine for just a minute that I was giving a general "let's be careful" and not an accusation aimed at you. Can you imagine that to to be the case?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Post Reply