The Confessing Seventh-day Adventist

The commentary on Daniel by Desmond Ford says the following:

Desmond Ford wrote:Keil places much stress on the fact that the word used for the temple in 8:14 is not identical with that employed in 8:11; 9:17; 11:31. It is the abstract term for holiness that is employed. For this reason he objects to the view that the promise of 8:14 points merely to a consecration of the sanctuary at the end of the days. “The words of the text…comprehend more than the purification and reconsecration of the temple” (p. 305). His suggestion is that the promise of 8:14 implies the restoration to its right state of “all that is holy” (ibid.). Others, such as Moses Stuart, have also seen the breadth of the statement. [p. 182].

Literally the text reads, “Then shall holiness be vindicated.” There is no article before “holiness”—thus while the sanctuary is certainly in focus, this abstract form of the word hints at the breadth of the concept encompassed. [p. 193].

Also, the margin of my NASB says that the word it translates as “properly restored” in 8:14 literally means vindicated.

I’d like to know if the Hebrew of Daniel 8:14 can be translated, “Then shall holiness be vindicated.”

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.

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.

n2messiah wrote:From my limited knowledge the words literally say vntsadik qodesh ~~ and the holy place is righteous.

Desmond Ford wrote:Literally the text reads, “Then shall holiness be vindicated.” There is no article before “holiness”.

I realize that there are several different verb forms for the root word tsadaq and that Daniel 8:14 uses a unique form of this word not found elsewhere in Scripture. I suppose, therefore, that there may be a difference of opinion on its exact meaning. However, at this moment, I’m more curious about how the article ‘the’ is understood to be present and precede the word qodesh in the text. Any ideas?

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).

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.

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."

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.

However, I think that the meaning … (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.

Raymond Cottrell writes:

It should be remembered that the LXX, the Bible of the Jews of the Diaspora, included the Book of Maccabees. And it is evident beyond question that the Book of Maccabees identifies Antiochus Epiphanes as fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy. 1 Maccabees 1 to 4 says much about the Antiochus Epiphanes desecration of the Temple (168-165 BC) and its subsequent ritual purification (i.e. cleansing), rededication, and restoration of its services.

The KJV translation cleansed has no basis, either in the Hebrew word nisdaq or in its usage throughout Jewish literature. The word is never used in this sense. The KJV translation cleansed reflects the Vulgate mundabitur and the LXX katharisthesetai, on which it was evidently based. The LXX at this point interpreted rather than translated the Hebrew nisdaq.

I understand Cottrell’s argument. It is easy to see how the desecration of the sanctuary and its cleansing would be identified to Daniel 8:9-14. Therefore, it is just as easy to see why the LXX translators would have supplied an interpretive translation to Daniel 8:14 based on what actually happened. The sanctuary was cleansed of its defilement. In other words, if you already believe that Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the Temple was predicted in Daniel 8, then nisdaq, no matter what it really meant, had to be thought of as meaning cleansed.

I don’t see how it’s justifiable to adopt the language of the Septuagint for Daniel 8:14 without the presupposition that Antiochus Epiphanes is the little horn of Daniel 8.

I know that the translators have specially crafted the LXX elsewhere to make a dramatic event in the life of Antiochus Epiphanes stand out in greater clarity. The Masoretic Text translates Daniel 11:30 as “ships of Kittim shall come against him” but the LXX and the easy reading Today’s English Version renders the same phrase as, “the Romans will come...” (Ford, Daniel, p. 269). If Daniel 11:30 is an interpretive translation, why not also Daniel 8:14?

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.

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 wrote:I don’t see how it’s justifiable to adopt the language of the Septuagint for Daniel 8:14 without the presupposition that Antiochus Epiphanes is the little horn of Daniel 8.

You see, it IS possible to use the term CLEANSED without refer to Antiochus Epiphanes. For 160 years we have done it, and we saw there a direction to Leviticus 16.
I am sure you are right about Daniel 11:30 were LXX has ROMAIOI and Vulgate has ITALIA. However in the same time, KITTIIM was probably used in Death Sea Scrolls as a name for Romans.
I agree with D. Ford and R. Cottrell on the identity of the not-so-little horn of Daniel 8: Antiochus and Antichrist (type and antitype), the actual spiritual succession of those medieval monsters who profaned the true Sanctuary of Christianity. This kind of succession allows any other arrogant persecutor to be included in the line...
However, I don't agree with anyone who says that the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is not biblical, or that 2300 evenings-mornings is about Antiochus, and are not fulfilled in 1844. I think that a more careful hermenutic and exegesis would lead us to a better, more complete understanding of this magnific truth of the Judgment. The 2300 "days" must end in the appointed time of the end (MO‘ED QETZ), according to Gabriel's consequent explanation, and it was a sealed prophecy reserved for the pious "maskilîm" of the end time (v.26, cf. Dan 12:4.9-10). And I believe that William Miller and other similar Bible students and preachers of his generation ant thereafter were those "maskilîm" that prophecy speaks about. I think that our understanding has some flaws and probably neither E. G. White understood it perfectly (in fact she never claimed such knowledge, and urged us to a deeper study!), but it WILL STAND TILL THE END.

Florin Laiu wrote:I agree with D. Ford and R. Cottrell on the identity of the not-so-little horn of Daniel 8: Antiochus and Antichrist (type and antitype), the actual spiritual succession of those medieval monsters who profaned the true Sanctuary of Christianity.

Desmond Ford’s view of Daniel seems to violate everything I know about proper grammatical-historical exegesis. I believe that Daniel 8 only foretells one prophetic scenario. If you have a refutation of my belief, then I’d like to hear your argument.

Raymond Cottrell told me personally that the little horn of Daniel 8 is the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and that both symbols represent Antiochus Epiphanes. It would make an interesting thread if you wish to defend him.

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 ! 8-)

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.

I wrote:Daniel 8 only foretells one prophetic scenario. If you have a refutation of my belief, then I’d like to hear your argument.

A scenario is “an outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events.” When I say that Daniel 8 only foretells one prophetic scenario, I mean that the prophecy of Daniel 8 only predicts one casting down of the place of God’s sanctuary, one 2300 evenings and mornings time interval and one vindication of the sanctuary. I’m saying that any other interpretation violates proper grammatical-historical exegesis.

Adding to the list of failures of Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn of Daniel 8, we should also mention that the little horn was to come at the latter end of the Hellenistic kingdoms and that Antiochus came more in the middle of their rule, not their end.

Daniel 8:23 clearly says that the little horn doesn’t arise until the transgressors have become completely wicked. The apostasy wasn’t complete until the Jewish church rejected Christ.

Perfect fidelity to grammatical-historical exegesis doesn’t concern itself with contriving, concocting or demanding a perfect historical fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

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 !

Florin Laiu wrote: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.

Florin, that's a beautiful theory if it could be made to work. The absolute truth is that it hasn't been made to work yet. I believe it will never work for anyone who calls grammatical-historical exegesis just some preconceived method.

Florin Laiu wrote: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.

Human reasoning seems conclusive to every Bible scholar who overlooks the obvious thematic division in the book of Daniel and the compelling evidence that Daniel presents an endtime for both the Greek and Roman period.