Q72 : The Identity of Daniel's Coming Prince

Home  •  Questions  •  Subscribe  •  Previous  •  Next

Q72 : The Identity of Daniel's Coming Prince

For Dr. Charles Ray:

Recently, I have 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.

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.

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.

An extract of his work can be found herea.

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 9:24 -25, and Psalms 78:38.

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 supports 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 Deu. 18:13 and the list goes on.

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.

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 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.

A72 : by Charles Ray

Thanks for your question about Daniel 9:24-27. I wish more people would study the Scriptures as you do! It’s important to keep in mind that there is a difference between a possibility and a probability. It is possible you are correct but not probable. Let's look at some of the evidence.

All major English translations have “people” and not “with.” Keep in mind that these versions are not done by one person. A committee of well-educated scholars was assembled to complete the project. I would have to defer to their collective knowledge.

I know you could respond by saying the LXX was also done by a committee, but our manuscript evidence is much better now than it was before Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example.

Speaking of manuscripts, “with” has very little manuscript support (I believe just one manuscript). The reasonable choice has to be with the better manuscripts.

Just the fact that I have had trouble finding information on this issue should tell us something. I hope this is helpful for you.

Search Website
Related Topics

Home  •  Questions  •  Subscribe  •  Previous  •  Next

Copyright © 2015 by www.SpiritAndTruth.org
(Content generated on Sun Mar 1 17:19:41 2015)