Dan. 9:26 'Emendation'




When the debate dust settles regarding Daniel 9:26 the following is most likely the interpretative reality thereof.

As such, I hereby suggest a realistic call for the ‘Emendation’ of the Hebrew word עם.

Going forward then, the next words of concern in the Daniel 9:26 transliterations is the Hebrew words ‘am’ (om) עם which is KJV transliterated as ‘people’ and 'im (om) which denotes ‘with’.  Regarding 'am vs. 'im, these two words do look pretty much identical in Hebrew.  In fact, they both have the same two consonants (ayin and mem) – Strong’s Hebrew #’s 5971-5974.  

The only difference is their vocalization, with the word for ‘people’ having a patach (a short ‘a’), and the word for ‘with’ having a hireq (an ‘i’).  However, these vowels, neither of which would have been represented historically in either of these words with a mater lectionis (i.e., the use of a yodh or a waw to indicate which vowel was present), date to the era of the Masoretes (circa A.D. 800, give or take), so they are in a sense Interpretations and Derivations generated from the original word.   Moreover, Strong’s numbers were NOT even mentioned nor applied to Scriptural texts until the mid 1800’s.
Thus, in Dan.
9:26 we have the MT vs. the LXX regarding the use of the Hebrew word עם (Strong’s 5971 ‘am’ - people) vs. עם (Strong’s 5973 ‘im’ - with).  

Dan 9:26 – Original Hebrew Tanakh (Masoretic Text)   
 ואחרי 310 and after   השׁבעים7620 weeks   שׁשׁים8346 sixty   ושׁנים8147and two   יכרת3772 He shall be cut off    משׁיח4899  Messiah   ואין369 and there is none  לוו to Him  והעיר5892 and the city   והקדשׁ6944 and the sanctuary   ישׁחית7843  He shall destroy   עם5971/5973 people of (am) with (im) נגיד 5057Prince   הבא935 coming…

As can be seen below the interpretative ‘manipulation’ of the above MT becomes unnecessary with the emended application of the Hebrew ‘im’ (with) rather than that of ‘am’ (people) and is then in COMPLETE agreement with the LXX.   

Dan. 9:26 - Greek Septuagint - LXX
     
And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. 

Daniel 9:26 – KJV
     …and the city and the sanctuary (He) shall destroy
with the coming Prince...
 

To this end, the "HE" of the LXX Dan. 9:26 above and the "HE" of the MT of Dan. 9:27 reveals that God gave the Spiritual Authorization for the 70 A.D. destruction while as history records the prince Titus Caesar was the Literal ‘instrument’ by means of which the 70 A.D. destruction was carried out.  Moreover, in the Spirit world Titus Caesar most certainly could NOT have undertaken such a task without the Spiritual permission and authority of God Himself.  See http://www.shalach.org/YeshuaMessiah/Dan.%209.26.html    

To this end, if you will be so kind as to read Lk. 20:9-17 and tell me just who the “HE” is that will “destroy” the city and the sanctuary PEOPLE – Jews (especially vs. 20:16) – it will be most appreciated. 

Likewise, if you will be so kind as to read Gal. 3:15-17 and once again tell me just who the “HE” is that “confirms the covenant” with the Jews – (especially vs. 3:17) – it will be most appreciated. 

This will invariably answer the question of who the “HE” is in both Dan. 9:26 & 27 in either the MT or the LXX. 

Meanwhile, is the MT always correct?   

The MT below begs the question of how could Ahaziah assume the Kingdom from his father Jehoram at his father’s death and be older than his father was?  According to the MT Jehoram, was 38 years old when he died and his son was 42 (or 22) years old when he was appointed to take his place as King. 

2 Chron. 21:20
    Thirty
(shelowshiym - 7970) and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired.
Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.  

2 Chron. 22:1
   
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.  

2 Chron. 22:2
   
Forty ('arba`iym - 705) and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.  

 2 Kings 8:25-26
   
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. [26] Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.  

In summary, while NOT personally advocating the LXX over the MT in any way, the LXX however, does get the above Passages right.