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.
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby R.J. Furuli » Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:21 am

Steve Miller wrote:


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.


Dear Steve,

Daniel says in 9:24: "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city." It evidently took seven weeks (49 years) to restore and build the Jerusalem. And it took 62 more weeks before Messiah, the Leader, would appear. Then there was one more week, and in the middle of this week sacrifice and gift offering would cease.(In order to avoid theology I will not give my opinion on the meaning of this.) However, we should note that the period of 70 weeks is one thing, and the ceasing of sacrifice and gift offering is something completely different, This means that the ceasing of sacrifice and gift offering does not break any covenant. But it is an event that occurs in the middle of the 70th week.

I would like to add one chronological comment: The "issuing of the word to restore and build Jerusalam" can be connected with the 20th year of Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah 2:1-6). It is an almost universal view that this year is 445 BCE. I refer in my book to several astronomical cuneiform tablets, which indicates that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is 455 BCE. This means that that start of the 70th week is the year 29 CE, the middle of this week is 33 CE, and the end of the 70 weeks is 36 CE.


Best regards,


Rolf

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby Isaac Fried » Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:00 pm

I doubt that כרת, 'cut ,chop, sever', may ever mean "covenant" without ברית. After all, כרת ברית means 'broke bread and sliced the lamb in a feast of brotherhood.'
I would translate 57:8
וְאַחַר הַדֶּלֶת וְהַמְּזוּזָה שַׂמְתְּ זִכְרוֹנֵךְ כִּי מֵאִתִּי גִּלִּית וַתַּעֲלִי הִרְחַבְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבֵךְ וַתִּכְרָת לָךְ מֵהֶם אָהַבְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבָם יָד חָזִית
thus
וְאַחַר הַדֶּלֶת וְהַמְּזוּזָה שַׂמְתְּ זִכְרוֹנֵךְ You have left behind closed doors the memory of your true faith and traditions
כִּי מֵאִתִּי גִּלִּית וַתַּעֲלִי Because you turned away from me to climb up the high places of perverse ritual (see previous verse)
הִרְחַבְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבֵךְ There you have spread out and fluffed your place of reclining
וַתִּכְרָת לָךְ מֵהֶם אָהַבְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבָם But it eluded you, the promiscuous love of them you so desired.
יָד חָזִית You perceived a fist.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby SteveMiller » Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:40 pm

Thanks Rolf,
You are translating the hiphil of ‎ גבר as "let prevail" instead of "cause to prevail".
Can that be supported by other hiphil examples in the Tanach?
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby R.J. Furuli » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:21 am

Steve Miller wrote:

Thanks Rolf,
You are translating the hiphil of ‎ גבר as "let prevail" instead of "cause to prevail".
Can that be supported by other hiphil examples in the Tanach?


Dear Steve,

This is a good question. And it may relate more to English than to Hebrew. English is not my mother tongue, and therefore I do not have the intuition of native speakers. When I translate something into English in a book, persons whose mother tongue is English will check my translation. But they do not check the translation against the Hebrew.

My reasoning behind the translation is as follows: The Piel stem is often resultative and factitive, and stresses the resultant state, while the hifil stem is causative and stresses the action. Sometimes an agent causes another agent to do something, in other instances one agent causes something. Because of different lexical meaning and aktionsart, in some situations we cannot see any causative force when hifil is used. Therefore there are many variables to take into account when Hebrew stems are translated.

Then to the point: The verb גבר in verse 27 is hifil perfect, third person singular masculine. There is no direct linguistic antecedent the "he." But the setting suggests that "he" is God. My understanding of the hifil is the same as your understanding—the subject causes something. I always try to make a literal translation of the Hebrew text. But I also have one eye on a good style, when that is possible. In my eyes the word "let" has a causative force, even though it may be weaker than by using "cause, as you suggest. And the word "let" make a better style. But I do not have the intuition as you have. So, perhaps I should have chosen your suggestion and have sued "cause to prevail."

Best regards,

Rolf

kwrandolph
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby kwrandolph » Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:21 pm

R.J. Furuli wrote:Steve Miller wrote:


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.


Dear Steve,

Daniel says in 9:24: "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city." It evidently took seven weeks (49 years) to restore and build the Jerusalem. And it took 62 more weeks before Messiah, the Leader, would appear.


Why take the 7 sevens and 62 sevens as sequential? I know that’s an almost universal practice, but I see no linguistic reason for that practice.

If you take them as sequential, why not take the 7 sevens as starting after the 70 sevens in order to maintain the same practice over the whole passage?

But if you take the 70 sevens and the 7 sevens as being concurrent starting at the same date, why not take the 62 sevens as also concurrent starting at the same date?

Why not be consistent?

R.J. Furuli wrote:Then to the point: The verb גבר in verse 27 is hifil perfect, third person singular masculine. There is no direct linguistic antecedent the "he."


Yes there is a direct linguistic antecedent to the “he”—verse 26 עם נגיד הבא “people of the coming leader” that destroys the city and temple is masculine singular. So it’s the people who will cause to impose a treaty, taking seven years to do so. Halfway through that effort he (the people) will cause the sacrifices to stop.

A problem with trying to date with astronomical data is that astronomical events are cyclical, therefore can refer to several dates, not just one.

Karl W. Randolph.

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: translation of Daniel 9:26

Postby R.J. Furuli » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:52 am

Karl Randolph wrote:


Why take the 7 sevens and 62 sevens as sequential? I know that’s an almost universal practice, but I see no linguistic reason for that practice.

If you take them as sequential, why not take the 7 sevens as starting after the 70 sevens in order to maintain the same practice over the whole passage?


But if you take the 70 sevens and the 7 sevens as being concurrent starting at the same date, why not take the 62 sevens as also concurrent starting at the same date?

Why not be consistent?


Dear Karl,

If there is no linguistic reason, there may be a mathamatical one: 7+62+1 = 70.

A problem with trying to date with astronomical data is that astronomical events are cyclical, therefore can refer to several dates, not just one.


It is evident that you lack knowledge of astronomical dating. It is true that the movements of the planets and the moon are cyclical. For example,every 18 years and 11 days, the moon has almost, but not exactly, the same position. However, an astronomical tablet often has several positions. and when these positions are taken together, a date can be fixed to hour, day, month and year—these positions can only fit one year.

The basis for the year 455 as year 20 of Artaxerxes I and the start of the 70 weeks is the evidence that there was a co-regency between Darius I and Xerxes, and that Artaxerxes I started his reign in 475/74 and not in 465/64. My book, When Was the Book of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, and Historical Approach, 210, 211 give an overview of the evidence:

"Which year corresponds to the 20th year of Artaxerxes I? According to the traditional chronology, that is year 445/44. However, dated cuneiform tablets from the reigns of Darius I, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes I, and various Greek and Egyptian sources indicate that Artaxerxes I started his reign ten years earlier, in 475/74 and not in 465/64. This means that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is 455/54 BCE. The evidence is as follows: There are 3 cuneiform tablets with celestial positions that are connected with the reign of Artaxerxes I. The tablet BM 33478 was dated in year 24 of Artaxerxes I by Sachs and Hunger, but they admit that the celestial positions do not fit that year. A study of the celestial positions in all the regnal years of Artaxerxes I, Artaxerxes II, and Artaxerxes III reveals a perfect fit of the positions on BM 33478 only in 465/64. According to the traditional chronology, this is year 21 of Xerxes and the accession year of Artaxerxes I. The cuneiform tablet BM 33478 tells that in the year when the celestial positions were observed there was an intercalary Addaru (an extra month 13). However, the accession year of Artaxerxes I did not have an intercalary Addaru. Therefore, this tablet suggests that the traditional chronology is wrong, and 465/64 was not the accession year of Artaxerxes I. However, the 10th year of ArtaxerxesI had an intercalary Addaru, and this may suggest that 465/64 was the 10th year and not the 1st year of the reign of Artaxerxes I. The cuneiform tablet BM 32235 mentions the year in which Xerxes died, which was his 21st year. Two lunar eclipses are also mentioned on the tablet, one whose position in relation to the constellation Sagittarius is described, and the other is said to have occurred in month VIII and its magnitude is described. There were two lunar eclipses in the years 465/64 and 475/74 respectively, and it is interesting that the eclipses of 475/74 fit the description on the tablet perfectly, but that is not the case with the eclipses of 465/64 where the fit is only approximately correct. This suggests that 475/74 was the accession year of Artaxerxes I, and that his twentieth year was 455/54."

My book, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology compared wit the Chronology of the Bible—VOLUME I Persian Chronology and the length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, have a very detailed discussion of the evidence, including a calculation of all the celestical positions on the relevant astronomical tables. These positions cannot fit different years in an astronomical cycle.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests