translation of Daniel 9:26

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby SteveMiller » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:37 pm

Danielkim wrote:I think both "yik·kā·rêṯ"(cut off) and " yaš·ḥîṯ" ( destroy) are Niphal (passive) tense.

yikaret is passive, but yashit is active.

Danielkim 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.


Daniel,
"but not shall be to city and sanctuary" is not English.
You are skipping the word ל֑וֹ, which means "to him".
You are skipping the "and" prefix on "the city".
Since there are no periods or commas in Biblical Hebrew, the "and"'s often fill that purpose to give us the structure.
"destroy" is active, not passive.
You are skipping the "and" prefixed to "its end".
You skipped the 3ms suffix on "end".
"the coming" cannot modify "its end" because of the "and" prefix on "its end".
You skipped the "and" prefixed on "until".
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

Guest

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Guest » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:51 pm

Danielkim wrote:Daniel 9:23 says Gabriel came to Daniel to help him to understand chapter 8.

I believe chapter 9 is linked to chapter 8.


It is assumed that chpt 8 is about world empires. I contend it is not. It is about who controls Jerusalem and Daniel's people until the Messiah comes. the fourth beast is not Rome.....the 4rth beast is the Hasmonean dynasty

Saboi
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Saboi » Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:20 am

משיח is the special title given to King Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1 and in Daniel 9:26 'יכרת משיח' translates "Messiah made a covenant", similar too 1 Samuel 20:16 "Jonathan [יהונתן] made a covenant [ויכרת] with [עם] house of David [בית דוד]".

The verb יכרת translates into ἐξαρθῆναι 'lift up, lift off the earth' , the adjective form ἐξαιρετός is הבכרות ' picked out, chosen, choice' (Jeremiah 24:2). in Daniel 4:24 'decree' (גזרת) comes from a root meaning 'to cut', Septuagint as σύγκριμα from the root κρίνω 'to pick out', hence the semantics between cutting and making a covenant, treaty or a decree. note. Daniel 9:27 - והגביר ברית/κέρεϊ ῥητήν and Daniel 9:25 'to restore and to build Jerusalem through Ezra 1:2 'he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.' accomplished with the decree.
Lee Mcgee

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Jason Hare » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:34 am

Saboi wrote:משיח is the special title given to King Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1 and in Daniel 9:26 'יכרת משיח' translates "Messiah made a covenant", similar too 1 Samuel 20:16 "Jonathan [יהונתן] made a covenant [ויכרת] with [עם] house of David [בית דוד]".

The verb יכרת translates into ἐξαρθῆναι 'lift up, lift off the earth' , the adjective form ἐξαιρετός is הבכרות ' picked out, chosen, choice' (Jeremiah 24:2). in Daniel 4:24 'decree' (גזרת) comes from a root meaning 'to cut', Septuagint as σύγκριμα from the root κρίνω 'to pick out', hence the semantics between cutting and making a covenant, treaty or a decree. note. Daniel 9:27 - והגביר ברית/κέρεϊ ῥητήν and Daniel 9:25 'to restore and to build Jerusalem through Ezra 1:2 'he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.' accomplished with the decree.

The Masoretes (and most after them) took יכרת as a niphal יִכָּרֵת "will be cut off" rather than as a qal יִכְרֹת "he will cut." Do you know of any other passages in which כרת appears without the explicit object ברית with the meaning "make a covenant." I understand it this way only when these two lexemes appear together.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Guest

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Guest » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:34 am

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.


Dear Daniel,

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.”


Best regards,


Rolf

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Jason Hare » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:42 am

Guest wrote:
Danielkim wrote:Daniel 9:23 says Gabriel came to Daniel to help him to understand chapter 8.

I believe chapter 9 is linked to chapter 8.


It is assumed that chpt 8 is about world empires. I contend it is not. It is about who controls Jerusalem and Daniel's people until the Messiah comes. the fourth beast is not Rome.....the 4rth beast is the Hasmonean dynasty

Who wrote this? It says "Guest," and it's in response to a post from two years ago.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Kirk Lowery » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:09 am

Jason,

"Guest" is actually Rolf Furli. He is posting as guest, instead of logging in.

Rolf: could you log in to b-hebrew? It will remember you from session to session. Then your posts will be automatically identified. Otherwise, you need to sign your full name to your posts. But we'd prefer if you post while logged in. If you have any problems doing that, PM me or email me (KirkELowery@gmail.com).

Blessings,
Kirk
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh

S_Walch
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby S_Walch » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 am

Jason Hare wrote:The Masoretes (and most after them) took יכרת as a niphal יִכָּרֵת "will be cut off" rather than as a qal יִכְרֹת "he will cut." Do you know of any other passages in which כרת appears without the explicit object ברית with the meaning "make a covenant." I understand it this way only when these two lexemes appear together.


Just done a search, and I could only find one place where the idea of כרת as "making a covenant/deal" was without ברית or another synonym:

Isa 57:8
וְאַחַ֤ר הַדֶּ֙לֶת֙ וְהַמְּזוּזָ֔ה שַׂ֖מְתְּ זִכְרוֹנֵ֑ךְ כִּ֣י מֵאִתִּ֞י גִּלִּ֣ית וַֽתַּעֲלִ֗י הִרְחַ֤בְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבֵךְ֙ וַתִּכְרָת־לָ֣ךְ מֵהֶ֔ם אָהַ֥בְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבָ֖ם יָ֥ד חָזִֽית

"And you have made a deal with them; you have loved their bed, you have seen their 'hand' (genitals)."

Be very unlikely then that Dan 9:26 would use כרת in such a way as meaning "making a covenant" as opposed to being "cut off/down".
Ste Walch

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby SteveMiller » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:16 pm

Rolf wrote:DANIEL 9:
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.


Rolf,
Your translation says that the leader will let the covenant prevail for 1 week rather than confirm a convenant for 1 week.
How can he let the covenant to prevail for 1 week, but in the middle of the week he breaks the covenant?
Then he did not let the covenant prevail for a week.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby R.J. Furuli » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:47 am

Kirk Lowery wrote:

"Guest" is actually Rolf Furli. He is posting as guest, instead of logging in.

Rolf: could you log in to b-hebrew? It will remember you from session to session. Then your posts will be automatically identified. Otherwise, you need to sign your full name to your posts. But we'd prefer if you post while logged in. If you have any problems doing that, PM me or email me (KirkELowery@gmail.com).

Blessings,
Kirk


Dear Kirk,

I thought I was logged in. Now I will be more careful.


Rolf


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests