The "HE" of Both Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27



I present to each of you readers a personal theological CHALLENGE...

 

Let me show you something very interesting...the focus of concern presented here is only on the highlighted section of the KJV translation of Dan. 9:26. 

 

Likewise, PLEASE note that this is NOT an attack on the overall credibility of the KJV (which I both advocate and subscribe to myself) but rather an exposition and grammatical comparison of Dan. 9:26 to that of the original Masoretic Text.

 

Daniel 9:26 (KJV)
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Posted below is a word for word translation of the actual highlighted Text from the Masoretic Text...(please check your own ISA for verification).  http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan9.pdf

 

Daniel 9:26 (MT)

...and the city and the sanctuary he shall destroy people-of the one coming prince and end of him in flood...

 

To this end, in the KJV translation the “HE” of the Hebrew “ishchith (yashcheth)” #H7843 and the “HIM” of the Hebrew “uqutz” #7093 have both been omitted from the Passage because of the individual and arbitrary translation choice by the KJV translators in their choosing the subject noun for this specific Passage as “PEOPLE”.  As such, this individual translation choice resulted in the interpretative consequence of the PEOPLE of the said Passage as being the “destroying” instrument and agent.  However, it will be shown hereafter that this is not exactly uncontestable and set in stone.

 

Meanwhile, it must be equally noted that the English translated word “PEOPLE” (Hebrew “om” #H5971) is used in this Passage as a noun-masculine-singular and the English translated word END (Hebrew “uqutz” #H7093) is used as a noun-masculine-singular as well.  Hence, the Masoretic Text parsed suffix “End of HIM”.  Likewise, the word “AND” has been removed and extracted from the parsed Hebrew word “ueoir” #H5892, KJV translated as “the City” (but per the Masoretic Text – “AND the City”) and has been placed in front of their suggested translation of “AND the people”.

 

Moreover, the KJV supplemental English word “THEREOF” in this Passage of concern is not even part of the originally published Masoretic Text.

 

To this end, as can clearly be seen from the aforementioned the KJV translators have taken a considerable grammatical liberty in there contextual and grammatical manipulation of the actual Masoretic Text in question - to arrive at their “suggested” final translation of a “destroying” PEOPLE of the prince that shall come.

 

In terms of the language of Biblical Hebrew (BH), the main verb forms contain pronouns within themselves.  Thus, the pronouns of verbs are not repeated when there is a clearly defined and presented subject noun.
 
However, it is equally true in BH when there is NO defined and presented subject noun that can replace the pronoun, then the pronoun of the verb is expressed as the subject noun in conjunction with its verb - hence, "
He shall destroy", where "He" is the pronoun subject noun of the verb "shall destroy".
 
Thus, this same identical Hebrew word
ishchith (yashcheth)” #H7843 used in Dan. 8:24 in the KJV, is indeed a valid and true parallel to my below cited translation Passage of Dan. 9:26 – “He shall destroy” where the “He” subject pronoun is expressed because there is no presented subject noun to replace it.  However, with respect to the KJV translation of this said Passage of Dan. 9:26, "PEOPLE" is their stated subject noun - and therefore the KJV correctly translates without repeating the implied "He" pronoun of the verb "shall destroy". 
 

Going forwards, for a point of clarification in my translation of Dan. 9:26 (not the KJV ) as stated before PEOPLE is NOT the subject noun of the verb "shall destroy" but rather the pronoun "HE" is the subject noun.  Therefore, it was NOT the PEOPLE who were to be doing the "destroying" as the KJV suggest, but rather the PEOPLE (the City and the Sanctuary people) are the ones that were to be "destroyed" by the subject noun HE.
 
In the meantime, my translation of Dan. 9:26 is parallel in every respect, as I previously stated, to Dan. 8:24 because it has no defined and present subject noun that can replace the "He".  Therefore, in my translation of Dan. 9:26 the pronoun "He" is then the expressed pronoun subject noun of the verb "shall destroy" and "the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince" is the object of the verb and subject noun "He shall destroy" - and the city and the sanctuary, etc., are the descriptive complimentary adjectives of the said object – that which is to be destroyed by the pronoun subject noun “He”.
 

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of him in a flood...

The above example, is parallel to saying the following: the HE is the subject noun, PEOPLE is the Direct Object, and City, Sanctuary, Holy and Righteous are all complimentary descriptive adjectives of the singular masculine direct object - PEOPLE.

 

...and the City and the Sanctuary PEOPLE of the Coming PRINCE He shall destroy...

...and the Holy and the Righteous PEOPLE of the Coming PRINCE He shall destroy...

 

In my statement, I have chosen to make the grammatical DIRECT OBJECT of the said destruction of the sentence/Passage NOT to be that of “the CITY and the SANCTUARY” but rather the “PEOPLE”.

 

Thus, the example is the grammatical equivalent contrast between “Dog Bites Man” vs. “Man Bites Dog”, whereas in the former the “DOG” is the stated subject noun, “Bites” is the stated verb and “Man” is the direct object (that which gets bitten by the subject noun DOG).  However, in the latter “Man” is the stated subject noun, “Bites” is once again the stated verb and “DOG” is the direct object (that which gets bitten by the subject noun MAN).

 

Therefore, the KJV is grammatically presented as the “PEOPLE” being the subject noun, “shall destroy” is the verb and “the CITY and the SANCTUARY” are the direct objects (that/those which gets destroyed by the subject noun PEOPLE).

 

However in my translation, the “HE” is the subject noun, shall destroy” is once again the stated verb, and “PEOPLE” is the direct object (that which gets destroyed by the subject noun HE) – plus, "the CITY and the SANCTUARY” are both descriptive complimentary adjectives of the direct object – “PEOPLE”.

 

For example, KJV “Dog Bites Mean and Vicious Man” vs. my translation of “Man Bites Mean and Vicious Dog” where in my translation, “MEAN and VICIOUS” are both simply two descriptive complimentary adjectives of the direct object DOG, who is Bitten by the subject noun MAN. 

 

So that the first part of the suggested KJV 9:26 translation would not overwhelm the second part of the same KJV 9:26 translation I have broken this Scriptural analysis into two brief commentaries.

When we TRADITIONALLY translate Dan. 9:26 using “PEOPLE” as the “subject noun” because of the use of the Hebrew word “uqutz” #H7093 in this said Passage, correctly translated as END of HIM, which is a noun-masculine-singular, we FORCE Dan. 9:26 to prophetically refer to the man Antichrist, because history records that Titus Caesar was NEVER destroyed with a “flood”.

 

“...and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end HIM shall be with a flood...”

 

Meanwhile, I have sent a set of questions to Hebrew scholars at prestigious educational institutions around the country, with acclaimed Hebrew language credentials that I would be hard pressed to list them all on this commentary page – here is but a snippet of what they have to say regarding the ABSOLUTE grammatical choosing of the “SUBJECT” of Dan. 9:26 and what it actually resolves to..

 

          I have looked at this text and it is not an easy one.  In this case absolute certainty is not possible.  Normally
          context assists in identifying the subject. 


This is a difficult text, as shown by the variants of several manuscripts. An important detail to take into consideration
is that the passage is written in poetic structure. Consequently, the word order is fluid, elements that point to the
definite direct object are omitted, etc.
 

Thus, as can be evidenced from the Scriptural analysis of the statements from the Hebrew language scholars above - from a Hebraic grammatical perspective it is “IMPOSSIBLE” to declare with ABSOLUTE certainty the “SUBJECT” of this particular Passage because there is NO Hebrew grammatical marker, “et”, our English “the” (the people) to indicate just what the direct object(s) of this particular Passage is/are to actually be.  Therefore, the above KJV translation is a TRADITIONAL translation but NOT a grammatically mandated ONLY one by any means.

 

Going forwards, as illustrated in my previous commentary on Dan. 9:26, the PEOPLE of this quoted Passage is stated as a noun-masculine-singular and the English translated word END (Hebrew “uqutz” #H7093) is used as a noun-masculine-singular as well.  Therefore, the Massoretic Text END of HIM in a flood would then be grammatically expected to be the END of the KJV stated DIRECT OBJECTS of this said Passage, in which they have translated to be “the CITY and the SANCTUARY”.

 

However, seeing that this KJV translation had created a grammatical conundrum for themselves – because the Massoretic Text itself, as stated, reveals the END of HIM and likewise seeing that the KJV translators who had grammatically committed themselves to the masculine singular PEOPLE as their subject noun of the destroying instrument/agent - and the combination of the CITY and the SANCTUARY as their grammatical OBJECT(s) of destruction would be plural THEM), with the CITY being Hebraically feminine and the Sanctuary being Hebraically masculine, opted for their supplemental “THEREOF” – which they did not even attempt to identify with italics, as though it was a legitimate translated word from the original Masorretic Text...it is not.  Thus, the correct translation would had to have been the END of THEM... (emphasis added)

 

Daniel 9:26 (KJV)
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall         destroy the city and the sanctuary; and
the end THEREOF shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war         desolations are determined.

 

Nonetheless, seeing their former error they have now with their NKJV attempted to correct this grammatical conundrum by their translation – the END of IT...which is unfortunately still wrong.  Why?  If the NKJV translators insist upon the singular-masculine PEOPLE as their subject noun of the one who destroys and "the CITY and the SANCTUARY” as their direct objects of destruction, then neither of these two stated nouns are neuters (IT) – they are feminine and masculine nouns respectively and the combination of the two is the plural THEM.  Hence, the END of THEM...and not the singular neuter IT.  Although, the Hebrew language has no neuter gender nouns – they are either masculine or feminine. 

 

Likewise, in their NKJV translation they have omitted the conjunction “AND” from the parsed Hebrew word uqutz” #H7093 – placing a punctuation period at the end of Sanctuary and forming an entirely new sentence for “THE END of IT, rather than “AND THE END of HIM”.  (see below – emphasis added)

 

Daniel 9:26 (NKJV)
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince who is to come Shall
destroy the city and the
sanctuary.   The end of IT shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

Meanwhile, when we consider then the English translated word “END” from the masculine-singular-noun Hebrew “uqutz” #H7093 of Dan. 9:26 we must ask ourselves – The END of WHAT or WHO? 

 

Therefore, seeing that the only other grammatical antecedent masculine-singular-noun the KJV translators had available to them, that could legitimately and grammatically come to an END, because of their insisted previous choice in their subject noun (PEOPLE) and their direct objects (the CITY and the SANCTUARY), was then the singular antecedent coming PRINCE – which they perfectly knew from recorded history (now 1611) that Titus Caesar most certainly did not meet HIS END with a flood, and the destroying masculine-singular people was not intended to be understood by the KJV translators as the PEOPLE of the coming PRINCE Messiah – and likewise, seeing that if they assumed a PRINCE other than the two recorded historical Titus or Messiah, they would be projecting all of this said Dan. 9:26 prophecy forwards towards an unrelated and contextually grammatical antecedently unnamed futuristic PEOPLE and PRINCE...they simply then opted to go with their stated END of IT rather than the actual Massoretic Text END of HIM. 

 

Let me say this again, if one chooses to suggest the PRINCE is the HIM in this Dan. 9:26 prophecy – “END of HIM” – then they are declaring this Dan. 9:26 prophecy section to be entirely Antichrist and not Prince Titus Caesar nor Prince Messiah.   “...and the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end of HIM shall be with a flood..."

 

Although, as stated before, there is NO singular antecedent neuter gender (IT) in Hebrew that can be grammatically identified in the statement of concern in either the MT or the KJV translation of Dan. 9:26 whatsoever.   

 

The long and short of the matter is this – I avoid this potential grammatical pitfall by simply declaring and selecting the subject noun to be the inherent “HE” of the verb “shachath”, which must ALWAYS be considered before choosing a grammatical subject noun/direct object in the beginning of the translation thought process itself, anyways.  Moreover, I declare the verb as “shall destroy” and the direct object to be destroyed as the singular-masculine-noun “PEOPLE” (with descriptive adjectives CITY and SANCTUARY) which then correctly corresponds with the MT and the subsequent Dan. 9:26 Passage statement “THE END of HIM” – the END of the singular-masculine-noun PEOPLE shall be with a flood.  History records that the “city and the sanctuary” PEOPLE (the Jews) were indeed destroyed by an invading Roman army, the ‘flood’, by Titus Caesar in 70 A. D.

 

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of Him shall be with a flood...

 

OR

 

...and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince and the end of Him shall be with a flood...

 

Which would be parallel and analogous to saying...

 

...and HE shall destroy the HOLY and the RIGHTEOUS people of the coming Prince and the end of Him shall be with a flood...

 

In summary, to bolster my translation claim of Dan. 9:26 I have direct supporting Scriptural evidence that reveals just who the "HE" is in my translation, and it is not the Messiah Prince - but reveals just exactly who this said antecedent "HE" of Dan. 9:26 and Dan. 9:27 actually is - who both "destroys the city and the sanctuary people" AND "confirms the covenant" with the Jews.

 

Therefore, just who is the “HE” of Dan. 9:26 that “destroys” and the “HE” of Dan. 9:27 that “confirms the covenant”?  Please see Matt. 21:33-45; Mk. 12:1-9; Lk. 20:9-16; Gal. 3:15-17.

According to Lk. 20:16, et. al., it was Yahweh God who destroyed the Jews...the husbandmen of the vineyard that killed His SENT Son...

 

Luke 20:16 (KJV)
16
He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

 

Finally, I kindly challenge you the reader to prove my above suggested Dan. 9:26 translation to be Hebraicly grammatically or Scripturally incorrect - and to actually evaluate which of the two translations is more accurately translated in respect to the literal Masoretic Text of this said Passage.