It's only my opinion but anyone who says
"the grammar forbids", over-estimates the strength of a grammatical argument within the context of a distinctly apocalyptic genre.
Foundation:
a) The argument is about the interpretation of a difficult passage.
b) Top scholarly Christian theologians have differing opinions.
c) The varying viewpoints rely upon opposing structures of interpretation that have been tested over the years (presuppositions).
d) Strong positions may be held but resolution of the difficulties is unlikely.
You had two conditions:
Please confine your answer to the grammar.
Please cite your references.
I will toss you a few sources from for you to ponder - the position that opposes dispensationalism generally take a historist viewpoint.
1) from Southern Baptist, Peter J. Gentry
Daniel's Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology), volume 14. No. 1, Pg 26 (2010)
Gentry covers some lexical and syntactic difficulties encountered in this chapter
.
"Verses 25–27 are not to be read in a linear manner according to the logic of prose in the western world based upon a Greek and Roman heritage." ...
"First, v. 25 introduces the first period of seven weeks and the gap of sixty-two weeks to the climactic seventieth week. This last week is described twice in verses 26 and 27. Verses 26a and 27a describe the work of the Messiah in dying vicariously to uphold a covenant with many and deal decisively with sin, thus ending the sacrificial system. Verses 26b and 27b show that ironically, supreme sacrilege against the temple at this time will result in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. Thus verses 26–27 have an A-B-A′-B′ structure. This fits the normal patterns in Hebrew literature to deal with a topic recursively. The literary structure can be diagrammed as follows:
A 26a the beneficial work of the Messiah
B 26b ruin / spoliation of the city by his people and its desolation by war
A′ 27a the beneficial work of the Messiah
B′ 27b abominations resulting in destruction of the city by one causing desolation
Observing this literary structure is crucial because one can explain difficulties in one section using the parallel section. For example, “the people of the coming leader” in v. 26b bring ruin to the reconstructed Jerusalem. Verse 27b provides further details showing that the “one causing desolation” does so in association with abominations. Below we will see how this makes perfect sense of the role played by both Jewish and Roman people in the fall of the temple. The literary structure also clarifies how the terms
māšîaḥ and
nāgîd in 25 and 26 refer to one and the same individual and moreover makes perfect sense of the “strengthening of a covenant” in v. 27a.
Jonathan Menn,
Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013), 400.
Who is “he”?
“If
he refers to the last-named person, ‘the prince who is to come’, the subject is the enemy of God’s cause [if one assumes the ‘prince’ of 26b is evil].” On the other hand, “As for the prince of verse 26b, whose army is said to advance against the temple-city, he is in any case thematically subordinated to the fate of the temple. Therefore, even if he were to be identified as the head of some foreign nation, he ought not to be preferred over Messiah as the subject of
higbir [i.e., the ‘he’ who confirms the covenant in 27a].”
“The indefinite pronoun ‘he’ does not refer back to ‘the prince who is to come’ of verse 26. That ‘prince’ is a subordinate noun; ‘the people’ is the dominant noun. Thus, the ‘he’ refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: ‘Messiah’ (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so even the destruction of the Temple is related to his death. In fact, the people who destroy the Temple are providentially ‘His armies’ (Matt. 22:2–7).”
“He” has been interpreted as Antiochus Epiphanes, Jesus Christ, or an end-time Antichrist.
3) Various modern single translator attempts at the passage
A)
26and after the sixty-two sevens,
An anointed will be cut off
and will have neither the city nor the sanctuary.
A leader to come will devastate a people,
and its end: with the flood.
Until the end of battle desolations are determinedi,
27and a covenant will prevail for the multitude
for one seven.
In the middle of the seven
sacrifice and offering will cease,
And upon a wing: a desolating abomination,
until a conclusion that has been decreed
overwhelms a desolate one.”
John Goldingay, Daniel, ed. Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Revised Edition., vol. 30, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 443.
B) (Goldingay's second attempt)
(25f) ...but in the pressure of the times, 26after the sixty-two sevens, an anointed will be cut off, and will have neither the town nor the sacred place; a leader to come will devastate a people and its end will come by a flood, but until the end of battle, devastations are determined;
27a pact will prevail for many people for one seven, for half the seven he will suspend sacrifice and offering, and upon a wing will be a. g great abomination, desolating, until a conclusion and something decreed overwhelms the desolator.'
C)
And after the sixty-two weeks of years the anointed one shall be cut off with none to save him. And the troops of a prince who comes shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, but his end shall come in a sudden rush, and till the end of the decreed war, desolation. (Daniel 9:26-27)
Robert Alter, Daniel, The Hebrew Bible. volume 3, The Writings (New York, W. W. Norton and Company, 2019), 787-788.
Some things to ponder...
Rob
