Transliteration of Daniel 9:26
I have recently conducted a great deal of intense theological research into the KJV transliterated passage of Daniel 9:26, and I hereby humbly submit my findings to the review and attention of your Biblical wisdom.
As I have so truthfully stated before, I make NO claim of Biblical Hebrew/Geek language proficiency, but merely present factual data that is logical and grammatically applicable, as well as easily accessible, to any concerned student of Bible theology.
In addition, I have submitted the following described Hebraic grammatical structure of Daniel 9:26 to a professor of Biblical Hebrew/Greek, and while he does NOT agree with the suggested implications and virtual outcome of my argument, because he has his own view, he does however, AGREE with the Hebraic grammatical accuracy and structure of the language and reading of Daniel 9:26 that I suggest.
The summation of my findings addressed below are based upon the instrument of legitimate application of Biblical Hebrew grammar and principals, that both verifies and supports the publication of the notable theological scholar Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, regarding his English transliteration of the Greek Old Testament Septuagint, published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851.
From an extract of his work we present the exact copied passages of Daniel 9:25 -27 for your analysis and review. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_1065.html
25. And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.
26. 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.
27. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.
What we see in the above passages of Daniel 9:25-26 from the transliterated Greek Septuagint is that the coming ‘Anointed One’ (the Messiah) is without any doubt the suggested ‘final authority of destruction’ of both the former city of Jerusalem and its Holy Temple. As history records, this prophecy was fulfilled by Titus Caesar in 70 A.D acting as the prophesied ‘coming prince’ and agent for the ‘final authority’ (the Anointed One - Messiah).
To this end, in the transliteration of Daniel 9:26 listed below we see the Hebrew word ‘shachath’ (ishchith) translated as the English words ‘shall destroy’. While this transliteration is perfectly acceptable, there is also an equally viable transliteration of this word, which is ‘He shall destroy or He will destroy’. This same exact translation and Hebrew word (shachath – ishchith) is applied to several other OT passages – Daniel 8:24-25, and Psalms 78:38 – posted below.
Going forward, the next word of concern in the above Daniel 9:26 transliteration is the Hebrew words ‘am’ (om) 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.
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate, per the above argument to make use of Biblical Hebrew emendation (a return to the original word) here, as did Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton in his transliteration of the OT Greek Septuagint and define the Hebrew word 'am/im (om) as ‘with’. Thus, one can authoritatively derive a reading that solves the problem of Daniel 9:26 and then reads, "he will/shall destroy the city and the holy place with the prince who is to come".
The conclusion of the above English transliteration of the Hebrew Daniel 9:26 is once again an exact supporting match to Brenton’s OT Greek Septuagint transliteration and suggests that the Messiah is the One who has the ‘final authority of destruction’ and the ‘coming prince’ is merely His instrument of fulfillment.
There are many Scriptural passages applying this same word ‘om’ transliterated as ‘with’ – Gen. 24:12, 31:32 Deut. 18:13 and the list goes on. A few examples are posted below.
However, in light of the above I must stress that the present KJV reading of Daniel 9:27 is completely acceptable as long as one concludes, as did the first 1611 KJV translators, that the Prince in both Daniel 9:25-26 are the same – the Anointed Messiah. This application of the current reading suggests that it was the Jews and their provocative actions, resulting in the crucifixion of the Messiah, that actually inspired and inflamed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple by the Romans.
As such, you will ask the following question, “How could the ‘people [the Jews] of the coming Prince destroy their own city and sanctuary?’” in relation to Daniel 9:26.
The notable Jewish historian Josephus reveals in Wars of the Jews - Book V, Chapter VI, Section 1 the following.
...they [Jews] returned to their former madness, and separated one from another, and fought it out; and they did everything that the besiegers could desire them to do. For they never suffered from the Romans anything worse than they made each other suffer; nor was there any misery endured by the city which, after what these men did, could be esteemed new. It was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown; and those that took it did it a kindness. For I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition. This was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls. So that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people...
In addition, Josephus reveals in Wars of the Jews - Book IV, Chapter 5, Section 2 the following.
...But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, [Jerusalem] and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city...
An additional preponderance of evidence that Jerusalem was indeed destroyed by/because of its own people (the Jews) is recorded in the OT prophecies of Micah 3:12 and Jeremiah 26:18.
These two prophecies reveal why the abominable and provocative actions of the Jews led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. The subsequent fulfillments of these prophecies were accomplished by God’s/Jesus’ appointed agents/instruments, first the Babylonians and then the Romans in 70 A.D.
Based on the above evidence (and previously submitted evidence) it does NOT matter either way we translate/transliterate Daniel 9:26 as follows, because it all resolves to the same – the ‘Prince’ in Daniel 9:26 and the ‘He’ in Daniel 9:27 are the Messiah.
1. ...and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary...
2. ...and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming...
Meanwhile, this implies that the Messiah did exact divine retribution upon Jerusalem and the Holy Temple by the instrument of the ‘coming prince’ the Romans and Titus Caesar.
Moreover, the positive aspect of the above analysis is that the Hebrew transliteration (as well as the OT Greek Septuagint) of Daniel 9:26 leaves NO room for further speculation as to the identity of the subsequent allusive ‘HE’ in Daniel 9:27. The ‘Confirmer of the Covenant’ is clearly the Prince Messiah. To assume otherwise, after reading this analysis, would be purely theoretical/hypothetical speculation and NOT based on sound Hebraic grammatical FACTS.
In additional support of the above transliteration/translation of Daniel 9:26 showing the Messiah to be the ‘He’ of Daniel 9:27, we find that noted Biblical scholar Robert Young who published the Bible Text ‘Young’s Literal Translation’ also echoes the same understanding.
Thus, designated YLT is from the 1898 Young's Literal Translation, who also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation which attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.
The three passages posted below were scanned from a reprint of the 1898 edition as published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Michigan.
25. And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
26. And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.
27. And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'
In summary, I suggest that until another legitimate and viable alternative to the above-mentioned transliteration of Daniel 9:26, that can ‘Specifically Name’ the He of Daniel 9:27, as this suggested analysis does (the Messiah), than this finding must in all theological professionalism carry the greatest creditability of current suggested transliterations.