translation of Daniel 8:11

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says (or quotes)
The expression the beautiful land (Heb. הַצֶּבִי [hatsévi] = “the beauty”) is a cryptic reference to the land of Israel. Cf. 11:16, 41, where it is preceded by the word אֶרֶץ (’erets, “land”).
Says I
צבי is from the the root צבה, צבא, צבע, 'inflate, enlarge, extend' (see Nu. 5:21-22), of which we have the animal names צב, צבי, צבוע, צפע, זאב, שפן, and also אצבע, 'finger'. It might refer to the elevated terrain of ירושלים and environs.

Jonathan says
Truth here probably refers to the Torah (תורת אמת)
Says I
This is good. I was actually thinking about it in translating Daniel 8:12, which I was on the verge of rendering
"And the occupying army (צבא) was posted to stand watch to feloniously (בפשע) enforce the TAMIYD ban, and in all this, truth was trampled down even as the Torah flourished (עשתה והצליחה)"

but better thought of it a bit too good to be true.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Jonathan:

Thanks, but there’s a problem with this:

Karl,

I thought I would add this text critical note from the NET Bible:

tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (utséva’ah nittan) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (vétsava’ tinnaten). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

This would support the feminine gender of the subject. For those who aren't used to this type of emendation. The editors of the NET Bible are going on the idea that the tav prefixed to the verb is in fact the feminine hey with dagesh belonging to the subject צבאה. Somewhere along the way a scribe misread a sloppily written hey and took it for a tav.

Jonathan Mohler

I checked, this verse is not found among the DSS.

There are four verbs in verse 12. As written all are feminine. As emended, the first verb becomes masculine. Then what or who are the subjects of the verbs, whereas as written there̦’s only one subject for all four verbs.

Secondly, צבאה is found only twice, Isaiah 40:2 and Jeremiah 51:3, both times as an appended Hey indicating possessive. Hence there’s no textual support for the emendation.

As written, the verbs that can be read as passives are Yiqtols, and the intransitive verbs Qatals, by emending the first verb to a Qatal, it also changes it to an active verb.

This verse is difficult to understand, but this emendation seems to present more problems than solutions to understanding this verse.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Karl,

You are correct about the hey ending. In fact I looked at this too quickly. The NET scholars point it as a feminine possessive. Further more they consider the subject to be masculine and the verb to be a Niphal Perfect masculine (not an active qal). So I checked the BDB. They show that there are only three places where צבא is "maybe" feminine (one of which is our verse).

צָבָא :485 noun masculine2Chronicles 28:9 (possibly feminine Isaiah 10:2; Isaiah 40:2; Daniel 8:12, but see AlbrZAW xv (1895), 319; BevDn) army, war, warfare

So this is a masculine that takes -ot as a plural suffix. Notice the adjective agrees in צבא רב Psalm 68:12.

Upon reflection, I think it is possible then that the Daniel is saying "her host." But as you say, that leads to a complication: who is the the possessor?

As to the meaning of the passage, it seems possible to me that the host of v12 is the angelic host (its chief being Michael the Prince of the Host) in charge of protecting the מְכֹ֥ון מִקְדָּשֹֽׁו. God is allowing the arrogant horn to prevail over this host, which has the effect of causing the daily sacrifice to cease.

I see a typical chiastic structure here:

A The army was given over,
B along with the daily sacrifice,
C in the course of his sinful rebellion.
B' It hurled truth to the ground
A' and enjoyed success.

This is instructive and tempting exegetically for sure. Notice that Truth (torah) is thrown down in this case by causing the daily sacrifice to cease. The corban hatamid is torah (instruction in action). When it ceases, the truth it was meant to teach was hurled to the ground.

Jonathan Mohler

[kwrandolph]

Jonathan:

The NET scholars point it as a feminine possessive. Further more they consider the subject to be masculine and the verb to be a Niphal Perfect masculine (not an active qal). So I checked the BDB. They show that there are only three places where צבא is "maybe" feminine (one of which is our verse).

The problem here is that צבא is almost never used in a context whereby we may guess at its gender. Even Psalm 68:12 can be read in such a way that רב is not an adjective to צבא.

צָבָא :485 noun masculine2Chronicles 28:9 (possibly feminine Isaiah 10:2; Isaiah 40:2; Daniel 8:12, but see AlbrZAW xv (1895), 319; BevDn) army, war, warfare

Warfare is not the only reason that a group is called into being, hence warfare is not necessarily the reason for צבא.

2 Chronicles 28:9 possibly masculine, is that the only one? Once only can be a copyist error. Not found in DSS.

Not found in Isaiah 10:2.

As to the meaning of the passage, it seems possible to me that the host of v12 is the angelic host (its chief being Michael the Prince of the Host) in charge of protecting the מְכֹ֥ון מִקְדָּשֹֽׁו. God is allowing the arrogant horn to prevail over this host, which has the effect of causing the daily sacrifice to cease.

I see a typical chiastic structure here:

A The army was given over,
B along with the daily sacrifice,
C in the course of his sinful rebellion.
B' It hurled truth to the ground
A' and enjoyed success.

This is instructive and tempting exegetically for sure. Notice that Truth (torah) is thrown down in this case by causing the daily sacrifice to cease. The corban hatamid is torah (instruction in action). When it ceases, the truth it was meant to teach was hurled to the ground.

Jonathan Mohler

I recently read a short history of the Maccabee period in which it was mentioned more than just that the Maccabees defeated the armies of Antiochus and the cleansing of the temple. In that history, it mentioned that there was widespread apostasy among Jews living in Judea, as a result, the Maccabee war was just as much a war against fellow apostate Jews as it was against Antiochus. Therefore, I read “rebellion” as referring to apostasy.

“Truth” being thrown down to the ground I see as more than just the stopping of the sacrifices, rather that it also refers to the hunting down and destruction of all copies of Biblical scrolls that Antiochus and his agents could find, and the widespread dishonesty often found among paganism, hence also among apostate Jews.

This is a very difficult passage to understand. However, it describes the Maccabee period. So we have that as the basic reference to try to understand it.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Jonathan:

The NET scholars point it as a feminine possessive. Further more they consider the subject to be masculine and the verb to be a Niphal Perfect masculine (not an active qal). So I checked the BDB. They show that there are only three places where צבא is "maybe" feminine (one of which is our verse).

The problem here is that צבא is almost never used in a context whereby we may guess at its gender. Even Psalm 68:12 can be read in such a way that רב is not an adjective to צבא.

Yup, I noticed that when I looked up a bunch of their (BDB's) references. Also, this is one of the only sentences where I can find צבא as subject.

צָבָא :485 noun masculine2Chronicles 28:9 (possibly feminine Isaiah 10:2; Isaiah 40:2; Daniel 8:12, but see AlbrZAW xv (1895), 319; BevDn) army, war, warfare

Warfare is not the only reason that a group is called into being, hence warfare is not necessarily the reason for צבא.

Yes, even Strong's Concordance agrees with you on that. (no I don't use Strong's as a "lexicon", but this Site I use has it under the BDB entry).
"Or (feminine) tsbadah {tseb-aw-aw'}; from tsaba'; a mass of persons (or figuratively, things), especially reg. Organized for war (an army); by implication, a campaign, literally or figuratively (specifically, hardship, worship) -- appointed time, (+) army, (+) battle, company, host, service, soldiers, waiting upon, war(-fare)."

2 Chronicles 28:9 possibly masculine, is that the only one? Once only can be a copyist error. Not found in DSS.

Not found in Isaiah 10:2.

As to the meaning of the passage, it seems possible to me that the host of v12 is the angelic host (its chief being Michael the Prince of the Host) in charge of protecting the מְכֹ֥ון מִקְדָּשֹֽׁו. God is allowing the arrogant horn to prevail over this host, which has the effect of causing the daily sacrifice to cease.

I see a typical chiastic structure here:

A The army was given over,
B along with the daily sacrifice,
C in the course of his sinful rebellion.
B' It hurled truth to the ground
A' and enjoyed success.

This is instructive and tempting exegetically for sure. Notice that Truth (torah) is thrown down in this case by causing the daily sacrifice to cease. The corban hatamid is torah (instruction in action). When it ceases, the truth it was meant to teach was hurled to the ground.

Jonathan Mohler

I recently read a short history of the Maccabee period in which it was mentioned more than just that the Maccabees defeated the armies of Antiochus and the cleansing of the temple. In that history, it mentioned that there was widespread apostasy among Jews living in Judea, as a result, the Maccabee war was just as much a war against fellow apostate Jews as it was against Antiochus. Therefore, I read “rebellion” as referring to apostasy.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a connection between the Prince and the host being defeated and the apostasy of the people, but this can only be tied to the passage by extension or drash. Exegetically though, the text (pshat) must first speak for itself. Strictly adhering to the discourse and the syntax בפשעו cannot refer to the apostasy of the people; the -o suffix tells us the referent is the little horn. Thus it is speaking of his transgression. This is supported by v13 which concerns the same four items mentioned in v11 and v12, namely, 1) the daily sacrifice, 2) the transgression, 3) the giving over of the sanctuary and 4) the host being trampled. So the transgression of v12 is qualified in v13 as "the transgression of desolation." My point is this, even if we agree that the horn is Antiochus, we cannot let the events of the Maccabean period force a reading on the text. The text must be exegeted as if we had just received it from Daniel, having no knowledge of the Maccabean period.

“Truth” being thrown down to the ground I see as more than just the stopping of the sacrifices, rather that it also refers to the hunting down and destruction of all copies of Biblical scrolls that Antiochus and his agents could find, and the widespread dishonesty often found among paganism, hence also among apostate Jews.

Sure, but only by extending the narrow meaning of the verse to a broader idea about truth. But it must be built on and consistent with the narrow meaning of the text. And here the chiastic structure bears out the connection between the two. Furthermore, the structure seems to be a Janus parallelism. So it is telling us in one direction that the "causing the daily sacrifice to cease" is "his transgression", while in the other direction, "by his transgression" he threw down truth." The full context of the chiasm then adds that he was successful in doing so because the host was given over to him.

This is a very difficult passage to understand. However, it describes the Maccabee period. So we have that as the basic reference to try to understand it.

No that would be imposing an outside framework on the text. But if we have done the exegesis properly, then we can infer the Maccabean period.

Karl W. Randolph.[/quote]

Jonathan E. Mohler

[kwrandolph]

Jonathan:

The problem here is that צבא is almost never used in a context whereby we may guess at its gender. Even Psalm 68:12 can be read in such a way that רב is not an adjective to צבא.

Yup, I noticed that when I looked up a bunch of their (BDB's) references. Also, this is one of the only sentences where I can find צבא as subject.

It is the subject of which verb? If you claim המבשרות (a feminine plural participle, not a verb in Hebrew) then that makes צבא feminine and common (able to refer to both singular and plural). Then רב is an object, not an adjective.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a connection between the Prince and the host being defeated and the apostasy of the people, but this can only be tied to the passage by extension or drash. Exegetically though, the text (pshat) must first speak for itself. Strictly adhering to the discourse and the syntax בפשעו cannot refer to the apostasy of the people; the -o suffix tells us the referent is the little horn. Thus it is speaking of his transgression. This is supported by v13 which concerns the same four items mentioned in v11 and v12, namely, 1) the daily sacrifice, 2) the transgression, 3) the giving over of the sanctuary and 4) the host being trampled. So the transgression of v12 is qualified in v13 as "the transgression of desolation." My point is this, even if we agree that the horn is Antiochus, we cannot let the events of the Maccabean period force a reading on the text. The text must be exegeted as if we had just received it from Daniel, having no knowledge of the Maccabean period.

I checked both WLC and Aleppo, and neither text has a suffix on “rebellion”. The nearest Waw is clearly a prefixed “and” on the following word.

Even (pshat) takes note of literary style and adjusts accordingly.

When reading Tanakh, there is a progression of literary style from relatively simple statements, to later allusions where the reader was expected to have to read between the lines to understand what is meant. Daniel is the last of the native Biblical Hebrew speakers who wrote texts included in Tanakh, hence used late Biblical Hebrew literary style.

Post Babylonian authors used few allusions and generally very simple style, indicating they were non-native speakers of the language. Their literary style tends to be even simpler than early Biblical Hebrew.

“Truth” being thrown down to the ground I see as more than just the stopping of the sacrifices, rather that it also refers to the hunting down and destruction of all copies of Biblical scrolls that Antiochus and his agents could find, and the widespread dishonesty often found among paganism, hence also among apostate Jews.

Sure, but only by extending the narrow meaning of the verse to a broader idea about truth. But it must be built on and consistent with the narrow meaning of the text. And here the chiastic structure bears out the connection between the two. Furthermore, the structure seems to be a Janus parallelism. So it is telling us in one direction that the "causing the daily sacrifice to cease" is "his transgression", while in the other direction, "by his transgression" he threw down truth." The full context of the chiasm then adds that he was successful in doing so because the host was given over to him.

See above.

This is a very difficult passage to understand. However, it describes the Maccabee period. So we have that as the basic reference to try to understand it.

No that would be imposing an outside framework on the text. But if we have done the exegesis properly, then we can infer the Maccabean period.

Jonathan E. Mohler

Daniel himself didn’t understand the vision, and his ability to understand probably would have been better than ours. In fact, he was given the vision precisely because of his God-given ability to understand. Yet he didn’t understand it.

Our ability to understand it is because we can look back and see the parallels between the vision and the historical events which it describes. We can put names to where he had just descriptions. We can recognize events to which Daniel had just oblique references. Yet the text is still difficult to read.

Karl W. Randolph.