The Hebrew of Daniel 8:14

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2002 6:47 pm Post subject: The Hebrew of Daniel 8:14

The commentary on Daniel by Desmond Ford says the following:

n2messiah · child of God Joined: 20 Aug 2002 Posts: 6

Not being a Hebrew scholar I will not dispute "Rav" Keil. From my limited knowledge the words literally say vntsadik qodesh ~~ and the holy place is righteous.

And said to me as evening morning two thousand and three hundred and the holy place is righteous.

Sounds more like the santuary will be made clean after two thousand three hundred days.
_________________
Timeline of Judaic and Christian events
Stuff your religious leaders never told you
http://n2messiah.topcities.com/index.htm

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2002 4:26 pm Post subject:

Dear n2messiah,

Thanks for taking a stab at my Hebrew question. If you ever encounter a unique commentary, an Old Testament scholar or someone who is proficient in Hebrew, please remember that I’m still open to receive all the understanding on the Hebrew of this verse currently available.

Eugene Shubert

Florin Laiu · Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 6:10 pm Post subject:

Dear Eugene,

This is an attempt to answer your good questions, and another way to appreciate your good work on this forum.

The following are results of my own research, still unpublished. Now I am doing my doctoral studies in Biblical Hebrew, after I received a MTh in Old Testament with a dissertation on Daniel 7, 8, 9.

וְנִצְדַּק קדֶש
wìniºdaq qoðeš
1.וְנִצְדַּק wìniºdaq / wuh-nits-DAQ = a verbal aspect called waw+perfect from the Niphal (kind of passive) form (“voice”) of the root ºadaq (be right / righteous / upright / just /), which is a static verb in the form Qal (the simple form /”voice”). In the Niphal “voice” this is the single occurrence of the verb. Most static verbs lack the Niphal “voice”, and where the Niphal is present, it has generally a passive meaning of any active „voice”. According to BDBG lexicon, in the active “voices”, the root ºadaq has the following meanings: (Qal) be just, be righteous, be right, be in the right, have a just cause, be justified; (Piel) to justify, make appear righteous; (Hiphil) to do justice, justify, declare righteous, vindicate the cause of, save, cause to become righteous, turn to righteousness. Thus, for the Niphal ”voice” (> niºdaq), we should have the meaning be given justice, be restored through judgement, be vindicated (cf. 2 Sam 15:4, 1 Ki 8:32, 2 Chr 6:23, Job 34:5, Ps 7:9, 94:15, 103:6, Jer 23:5, Mi 7:9). It is even possible to find that this niºdaq is not a real hapax (single occurrence). According to the LXX rendition of Ps 51:6, as Paul also quoted it in Rom 3:4, the word תצדק ; that Massoretes pointed to be read תִּצָּדֵק ; tiºdaq (you are / will be right) should be read (gr. ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΗΣ = you’ll be justified, proved right, vindicated). It is interesting that in the parallel stich of the same verse of the psalm we find the root zakah (be / make pure), used as a possible synonym of ºadaq, and both have forensic meaning (cf. Job 15:14, 25:4, Dan 6:23, Mi 6:11). However, I think that the meaning ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΘΗΣΕΤΑΙ (it will be cleansed) preferred by LXX, then taken over by Jerome in his Vulgate (lat. mundabitur) is either borrowed from the books of Maccabees, -- where we find repeated reference to a „cleansing of the sanctuary” (1 Ma. 4:36, 41; 2 Ma. 1:18; 2:16, 19; 10:3, 5, 7), pointing to the purification and dedication made by Judas Maccabeus in 165 BC, -- or they translated this unique Hebrew form, according to their obvious understanding of the prophecy’s fulfillment.
______________________________________
2. קדֶש qoðeš / QO-thesh = noun, meaning holiness, sacredness; anything holy (sacred, consecrated). It has often adjectival use, sometimes deffective (the qualified noun being absent), becoming a substitute for different holy things. Here is a noun, meaning holy [place], that is sanctuary, temple, the grammatical subject of the preceding verb. Though Daniel used above a synonym from the same root (miqdash), he uses the same anarthrous qodesh in v. 13. It is possible that qodesh means here more than just the sanctuary (miqdash) mentioned in v. 11, to include anything holy related to the sanctuary service (not only the place), because this is its usual meaning when it has no article. However, we find the anarthrous noun qodesh to mean sanctuary in two places, in Biblical poetry: Ps 20:3, 134:2. (This is not the only anarthrous noun used by Daniel in a definite sense. Another unusual term is mashiah of ch. 9:18, which some want to translate it ”an anointed one”, in spite of the context indicating The Messiah. Some Hebrew nouns do not ever receive the definite article, though we translate them with definite article).
_________________
"Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" (NRS Job 34:13).

Florin Laiu · Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 6:19 pm Post subject: ERRATA

I am sorry for the bad condition of my previous posting. In a similar forum I succeeded to post terms in Hebrew or Greek script, but here I see it does not work. Neither I could find a button for erasing. So that you need to make yourself the cleansing / vindicating of my findings about the sanctuary.
_________________
"Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" (NRS Job 34:13).

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 6:58 pm Post subject:

Dear Florin,

I will look into enabling this forum to post Hebrew and Greek. Just give me a few days. You may edit your post when you click on the edit button. If you want your post completely erased, just replace what you've written with a note saying "please delete this post."

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2002 10:56 am Post subject:

Florin,

Please let me know if I understand you correctly. It seems to me that you are openly rejecting the established meaning of the Hebrew word nisdaq, as validated by the Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and Greek Lexicon (BDBG), and favor an interpretative rendering.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2002 11:08 am Post subject:

Florin,

I am at a complete loss at explaining your success in posting Hebrew and Greek script elsewhere. Because I have found that it’s beyond my investigative and research abilities to reproduce your success here, we’ll just have to stick with English. That won’t be so bad. Most readers would prefer that we write in plain, easy to understand, language.

Florin Laiu · Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:38 pm Post subject:

Dear Eugen,
Sorry I don't know how to help you to improve this interface that we may post Hebrew or Greek script. I cannot explain the technical difference between the two forums. But you are right, we may use this Roman script.

Now, since my English might be obscure sometimes, I want to explain my position concerning nitsdaq in Daniel 8:14. My conclusion is the same as Cotrell's which you quoted. The traditional translation (CLEANSED) stems from the LXX, where those translators interpreted the term according to the recent history. (This is indirectly a good argument for the old birthdate of the book of Daniel, since the 2nd century writings prefer "cleansed").

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:07 am Post subject:

Florin Laiu · Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:36 am Post subject:

It is possible that Cottrell developed in time a more liberal position on the identity of the little horn. I was saying that my view is essentialy the same as in Ford's commentary on Daniel (written before 1980).
I didn't know that Cottrel changed even more toward the liberal position. If you say that he told you that the forth beast in Daniel 7 is Antiochus Epiphanes, this is a pure liberal preterist position, and I can't accept it. I also don't know what Ford teaches today on Daniel 8, but in his commentary he was still acceptable for the Adventist position, and re the identity of the little horn I don't know a better defendable position.

I don't understand what means that "Daniel 8 only foretells one prophetic scenario." Are you referring to the unique historical application of the little horn symbol ? I would like that you were right, but unfortunately there is no historical entity springing up from an hellenistic kingdom to last up to the end. The only one fulfilling this origin is Antiochus Epiphanes, and also he fulflilled other features of this prophecy, except some important aspects: he didn't last until the end-time, his activity cannot be measured by the period of 2300 days, he didn't demolish the temple, he had not so important victories in the East. Thus, we wittness a spiritual dinasty beginning with Antiochus and continuing with Rome in his phases: pagan, christianized, papal... This is the actual succession of Papal Rome, and Antiochus Epiphanes was theri first Apostle, educated in Rome and the first to invent Inquisitions and religious uniformity. Think of it !

_________________
"Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" (NRS Job 34:13).

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 12:21 pm Post subject:

Florin,

My conversation with Dr. Raymond Cottrell took place in his home in Calimesa, California 20 years ago. He defended his view saying that it’s exactly how the book of Daniel was understood in the second century BC.

I believe that Ford’s commentary on Daniel is respectable, except for the chapters covering Daniel 11&12. Ford’s Glacier View manuscript (1980), published as Daniel 8:14 The Day of Atonement And the Investigative Judgment, is a brain numbing mess. Starting with the Glacier View manuscript, all of Ford’s subsequent writings and sermons have the 2300 days applying to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Florin Laiu · Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:20 pm Post subject:

Dear Eugene,

I think these people who identify the horn with Antiochus are right, except that this identification is not complete. Actually there is no earthly power coming up from an hellenistic "horn" and living up to the endtime. Therefore, the solution of Dr. Ford (Antiochus + Rome + Papacy etc.) is the best for the time. Therefore chapters 11-12 are especially respectable in Dr. Ford's commentary.

I'd like you to be right about the unique scenario of chapter 8, because I too hate multiple applications. But we simply cannot avoid this conclusion, because there is no historical entity to fulfill all prediction of this prophecy. Especially the origin of this horn cannot honestly be applied to another political power but to Antiochus IV. This is obvious when you study chapter 8 in parallel with chapters 11-12.

You said that the little horn cannot be Antiochus, because his birthday is too early to fulfill the prophecy. But remember that Rome took Macedony at about the same time. The transgressors who have become completely wicked in chap. 8 should be the hellenistic kingdoms (from the context) and not the Synagogue rejecting Christ.

I think that the correct interpretation is attained not by fidelity to some preconceived method of interpretation, but rather by careful study of both Bible text and the science of history, in order to make the best agreement between the two.

God bless your work !
_________________
"Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" (NRS Job 34:13).

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:43 pm Post subject: