The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 1

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
Draft 3
Revised July 21, 2014
2014
Communication at Utterance Level
Although biblical interpretation has become more scientific in the past decades, more
work must be done in order to establish an adequate and rigorous linguistic basis for its
application. Serious interpretation issues occur when theologians are not well acquainted with
basic linguistic concepts and empirical language data. It is crucial for Bible scholars, for
instance, to understand lexical and semantic concepts that are related to words and their
properties apart from context and in context. The most important matter is that natural human
communication occurs at the utterance or discourse level, and not at word or sentence level
where most exegetes presume it to happen. States Cruse:
We do not communicate with isolated words; words are not the bearers of messages [emphasis added];
they do not, of themselves, make sense; they cannot, taken singly, be true or false, beautiful, appropriate,
paradoxical, or original. A linguistic item must in general have at least the complexity of a simple
sentence to show such properties [emphasis added]. Words contribute, via their own semantic properties,
to the meanings of more complex units, but individually they do not occasion our most vivid and direct
experiences in language. We communicate with utterances [emphasis added]; it seems reasonable to
suppose, therefore, that our intuitions concerning utterances will be sharper, clearer and more reliable than
those concerning individual words. Consequently, in this book arguments about the meaning of a word
will be made to rest, as far as possible, on facts concerning utterances which contain the words in
question [emphasis added].1

The fact that biblical interpretation at word level indicates linguistic ignorance and
exegetical incompetence and not theological or exegetical expertise becomes obvious when one
understands that semantic properties cannot be observed and confirmed in words outside the
immediate and extended context and below minimal sentence level. For this reason, Cruse finds
that it is crucial to depend for word meaning as far as possible, on facts concerning utterance
which contain the words in question, and not on lexical word definitions.
Word Meaning and Interpretation
It is not uncommon for theologians to wager the propositional content of an entire chapter
or even a Bible book on the lexical definition of a word or even on the gender or morphological
inflexions a word carries. Such seems to be the case with the historicist interpretation of chapter
8 in the Book of Daniel, specifically verses 8 and 9. In this case, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary [further, SDABC] theologians make the entire interpretation of the chapter
dependent on the gender discord between the Hebrew terms them in verse 8 and horns in
verse 9 in total disregard of the propositional or semantic content of the discourse fragment that
constitutes chapter 8 in Daniel:

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 2

9. Out of one of them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for them, hem,
is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is winds (v. 8) and not horns, since
winds may be either masculine or feminine, but horns, only feminine. On the other hand the word for
one, achath, is feminine, suggesting horns as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the
word for winds, which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would
assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical
agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to
winds, or the word for them should be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be
ambiguous, since either winds or horns may be the antecedent. A number of Hebrew manuscripts have
the word for them in the feminine. If these manuscripts reflect the correct reading, the passage is still
ambiguous.
Commentators who interpret the little horn of v. 9 to refer to Rome have been at a loss to explain
satisfactorily how Rome could be said to arise out of one of the divisions of Alexanders empire. If them
refers to winds, all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the four points of
the compass would come another power. Rome came from the west. In the literal explanation of the
symbols of the vision Rome is said to arise in the latter time of their kingdom (v. 23), that is, the
kingdom of the four horns. However, v. 23 refers only to the time when the little horn would arise and
says nothing of the place of its rising, whereas v. 9 is concerned exclusively with its location . 2

Here, as in other theological articles and papers written to support conclusions that cannot
be established through the rigorous interpretation of the biblical text, word denotations or senses
are thought to define the propositional content of entire passages or books, as if Hebrew lexicons
and grammar textbooks could contains the solution to the text interpretation, and as if humans
were communicating with isolated words. More that ignorance in matters of general semantics
and pragmatics, the comments above also demonstrate ignorance and incompetence in Hebrew
language matters. The authors of the comments should know that the confusion of gender that
has become the basis for their incorrect interpretation that makes wind the antecedent to the
horn in Daniel 8 is a common phenomenon in the Hebrew Old Testament. Rendsburg
describes it as gender neutralization and shows that it is rather widespread in numerous Old
Testament books, which indicates that this grammatical phenomenon is not unique to Daniel and
cannot be invoked to support the Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] unbiblical interpretation
for the little horn in Daniel 8:
One of the main characteristics of spoken dialects throughout Semitic is gender neutralization. 1 This term
refers to the use of epicene [common gender] forms in grammatical categories where the standard dialect
employs separate masculine and feminine forms. The direction of gender neutralization is usually the
masculine forms supplanting the feminine ones, though the opposite drift 2 can be noted. In spoken Hebrew
this is witnessed in the 2pl and 3pl independent pronouns, 2pl and 3pl pronominal suffixes, 2pl and 3pl
imperfect verbs, and plural imperative.3 The key to detecting these forms in the Bible will be an apparent
discord of gender, that is to say, where a masculine pronoun is used with a feminine antecedent or where a
masculine verb appears with a feminine subject.3

Word Meaning and the Context

Cruse insists that word usage in grammatically appropriate contexts depends on the
semantic normality (and abnormality) pattern that defines that language context, and also that
every difference in the semantic normality profile between two items should be understood as
a difference of meaning within the full set of normality relations which a lexical item
contracts with all conceivable contexts. States the linguist:

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 3

It is taken as axiomatic in this book that every aspect of the meaning of a word is reflected in a
characteristic pattern of semantic normality (and abnormality) in grammatically appropriate
contexts13 [emphasis added]. That which is not mirrored in this way is not, for us, a question of meaning;
and, conversely, every difference in the semantic normality profile between two items betokens a
difference of meaning. The full set of normality relations which a lexical item contracts with all
conceivable contexts will be referred to as its contextual relations. We shall say, then, that the meaning of
a word is fully reflected in its contextual relations; in fact, we can go further, and say that, for present
purposes, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations. 14 4

His statements indicate that it could never be good exegesis to impose on a certain
context the lexical definition of a word in order to obtain the propositional content of a biblical
passage because lexicons do not contain a words meaning but the words particular definition
or sense, and therefore a word does not have meaning outside its natural context. For this
reason, a words semantic properties or meaning cannot be defined outside the contextual
relations that the word has with the context within which it has been embedded. Frege has
summarized the linguistic implications of Cruses statement into one sentence: Only in the
context of a sentence do words have meaning [emphasis added].5
Definition, Sense, and Word Usage
The use of a lexicon in order to obtain the meaning of a word included in a certain
context reveals ignorance in relation to a words semantic outside and inside a context and lack
of knowledge about certain lexical concepts that could make a fundamental difference in
interpretation such as the definition, sense, denotation, reference, and the usage of a word. The
lexicon can provide the exegete with a words definition and its denotation or sense[s], but not
with its semantic properties or meaning in the context, that is, the words usage, because as
stated in the paragraph above, words do not have meaning outside the contexts.
Trask refers to a words definition as a statement which identifies the meaning of a term
in sufficient detail to allow a reader to decide exactly when that term may be applied to
something.6 This description needs to be clarified with the addition that it is nonsense to talk
about defining words in the way most people do, because a definition does not define a word
but its meaning,7 and the conclusion, then, is that what a word definition defines is not the word,
but one if its senses8 as is the case with the English word bank that has two main lexical
senses: 1. a piled-up mass or raising ground bordering a lake, river, or sea, and 2. an
establishment concerned esp. with the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, the extension
of credit, and the transmission of funds,9 and whose meanings in use will depend entirely on the
context in which the first or the second sense of the word bank is used.
Hudson states that a words sense is the general concept that is always linked to it [the
word], while about referent he notes that whoever or whatever a word refers to is its referent
on that occasion of use.10 Another term that must be considered is denotation, or conceptual
meaning. Trask describes it as the most central part of the meaning of a word or other linguistic
object; that part of its meaning which is intrinsic to it and which is always present, independent
of context and free of associations.11
Brown and Yule take time to summarize the terms discussed above and their relationship
to the meaning or usage of a word in context, as follows:

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 4

In the traditional approach, the term reference is used, together with sense to discuss lexical meaning.
The meaning of a lexical item, such as chicken, is partially determined by its sense, that is, the component
properties of animate, feathered, etc., and also determined by its reference, that is, the set of objects in
the world to which the expression can be correctly applied.
Lyons (1977:ch. 7) provides a detailed account of the background and issues involved in this distinction
and suggests that the term reference is better replaced by the term denotation in considerations of lexical
meaning. We shall follow his practice and say that, in discussions of lexical semantics, it may prove useful
to claim that a lexical item (strictly speaking, a lexeme) has sense (component properties of meaning) and
denotation (a set of objects to which it can correctly be applied). 12

From the above comments, it should be clear that a lexicon cannot provide an exegete
with the meaning of a word in a specific context, but only with the context-independent word
information. States Cruse, again: An ordinary dictionary characterizes a lexical item in three
distinct, though intimately inter-connected ways: first, its form (graphic and phonological);
second, its grammatical function; and, third, its meaning (sense and denotation).13 The lexicon
will not provide the exegete with meaning-in-use in a specific context because a words meaning
in context depends to a large degree on the context in which the word will be used. Frege makes
a words relationship with its context and the contexts extreme importance for the words usage
and meaning clear when he states that Only in the context of a sentence do words have
meaning [emphasis added].14
Cruse insists that empirical language studies must be based on primary data, whose
factuality is not questioned, whose fundamental source is the productive output, spoken or
written of native users of the language, and the intuitive semantic judgments by native
speakers of linguistic materials of one kind or another. These two sources would provide the
relevant linguistic information and establish text interpretation on a solid basis:
Any empirical study (a category to which lexical semantics, as outlined in this book, undoubtedly belongs),
must rest, at some point, on a body of primary data, whose factuality is not questioned, and which is not
subjected to further analysis. For a study of lexical semantics, there would seem to be two principal sources
of primary data; needless to say, the native language-user is central to both of them.
One source is the productive output, spoken or written, of native users of the language. Clearly much
insight into word meaning is to be gained by observing the ways in which words are strung together by
competent practitioners of a languageThe second principal source of primary data on which a study of
lexical semantics can be based is furnished by intuitive semantic judgments by native speakers of linguistic
materials of one kind or another. 15

Chathak as cut off in Daniel 9:24

We now turn to the examination of some theological documents that claim reliable
evidence for the rendition of the Hebrew term chathak in Daniel 9:24 as cut off rather than
determine. The intense efforts to support such a rendition are justified from a historicist point
of view because an interpretation of Daniel that makes chapter 9 an appendix to chapter 8 and
attempts to validate the 2300 years prophecy in Daniel 8:14 is conditional and reliant on that
rendition. The usual forms of evidence in support of the reading cut off for chathak come
from lexicons and deal with the root meaning or definition of the word chathak. It is a rather
common practice for exegetes when the need arises to explain what a word means in a context
to rush to as many lexicons as possible in the false belief that lexicons can help them discover the
usage of the word in that specific context.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 5

This approach is due to the fact that most exegetes are not aware that lexicons can
provide only information that relates to the definition of a word, that is, denotation and sense,
but provide no contextual data about a words usage. This means that such exegetes do not
consider the distinction between lexical definition or sense of a word (which is context neutral),
and the words usage in a specific context, and assume that a words lexical definition or sense
has the same meaning as the meaning the word takes on through usage in the semantic network
within which it is located. All these word studies that depend on lexicons at most muddle the
waters instead of bringing clarification to the question about a words meaning in a certain
context.
Historicists Arguments for cut off
Uriah Smith
Most historicist books and articles that favor the rendition of chathak as cut off rather
than determine, come from known Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] theologians such as
Smith, Ellen G. White, Doukhan, and Shea, and summarize the SDA position on the issue. The
arguments presented are based on lexicons. States Smith:
Proof may be called for that the word rendered determined signifies to cut off. An abundance can be given.
The Hebrew word thus translated is [Hebrew text not included] nehhtak. This word Gesenius, in his
Hebrew Lexicon, defines as follows: Properly, to cut off; tropically [sic!], to divide; and so to determine,
to decree. In the Chaldoe-Rabbinic Dictionary of Stockius, the word nehhtak is thus defined: Scidit,
abscidit, conscidit, inscidit, exscidit to cut, to cut away, to cut to pieces, to cut or engrave, to cut off.
Mercerus in his Thesaurus furnishes a specimen of Rabbinical usage in the phrase, hhatikah shel basar, a
piece of flesh, or a cut of flesh. He translates the word as it occurs in Dan.9:24, by praecisa est, is cut
off. In the literal version of Arias Montanus, it is translated decisa est, is cut off; in the marginal reading
which is grammatically correct, it is rendered by the plural, decisae sunt, are cut off. In the Latin version
of Junius and Tremellius, nehhtak (the passive of hhathak) is rendered decisae sunt, are cut off. Again, in
Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel (which is the version used in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, as
being the most faithful), it is rendered by [Greek text not included] (sunetmethesan), were cut off; and in
the Venetian copy by [Greek text not included] (tetmentai), have been cut. The idea of cutting off is
preserved in the Vulgate, where the phrase is abbreviatae sunt, are shortened.
Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give
the single signification of cutting off [emphasis added], to this verb.16

Smiths statements indicate that all the evidence the pioneer Adventist offers for the
rendition of the Hebrew term chathak as to cut off, instead of determine comes from some
Hebrew lexicons and is based on non-contextual, irrelevant, and deceptive data about a words
definition, sense, or denotation, that has little or nothing to do with the words usage in a specific
context. Such unscientific arguments indicate that the SDA pioneer is language ignorant and
confused about definition and usage. His evidence does not help with the meaning of the
Hebrew word chathak in the context of Daniel 9:24 because it is inadequate and false.
The examination of the first example Smith provides the lexical definition of the word
chathak in the 1846 version of Geseniuss Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon seems to indicate that
with intent or without intent Smith has listed selectively the information contained in the
lexicon. He states: The Hebrew word thus translated is nehhtak. This word Gesenius, in his
Hebrew Lexicon, defines as follows: Properly, to cut off; tropically, to divide; and so to
determine, to decree. Smiths provided information proves to be correct only in part because he

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 6

has omitted from the lexicon entry all the information that contradicted his viewpoint. The full
lexical entry is as follows:
Chathak properly TO CUT, TO DIVIDE, as in Ch. and Rab. (cogn. To the roots which begin with cts, ct,
cts) hence to decree, to determine.
NIPHAL pass. Dan. 9:24, seventy weeks nihtak al amka are determined (and shall come) upon thy
people. Thedor. and Gr. Venet. sinetmithesan tetmentai. LXX ekritesan.17

From the full data on the word chathak in Geseniuss lexicon it would be incorrect to
conclude that the lexicons author subscribed to Smiths conviction that chathak should be read
cut off. It seems that instead, Genesius affirms that the word should be read to decree, to
determine, and refers directly to Dan. 9:24 to emphasize the translation to determine for chathak
in that same context for which Uriah Smith prefers the rendition cut off. After such biased
citation of Geseniuss lexicon and false conclusion about the definition of the word chathak, one
wonders how much more error or rather distortion might be found in the other proofs Smith
offers for his preferred rendition of the word in question.
The proof examples Uriah Smith submits in support for his interpretation of the term
chathak are all lexical and therefore inadequate for the proper exegesis of Daniel 9:24-24, and
could be organized in three groups: (1) definition, (2) usage, and (3) translations. For the
definition, Smith cites Geseniuss Lexicon and Stockiuss Chaldeo-Rabbinic Dictionary, for
usage he cites Merceruss Thesaurus, and for the terms rendition into English Smith mentions
Mercerus,s translation, Arias Montanuss translation, Juniuss, Tremeliuss, and Theodotiuss
translations, that are followed by the Venetian, Septuagint, and Vulgate translations. Smith ends
his list of proofs with the statement: Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the
earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of cutting off to this
verb. Smith is not aware, or seems to ignore the fact that the LXX translates the Hebrew
chathak as ekritesan, defined in the Newman Greek-English Dictionary as:
[UBS] krino judge, pass judgment on (midd. and pass. Often stand trial, go to law) condemn; decide,
determine, consider, regard, think; prefer18

The SDA pioneer seems also to be certain that all the scholars who have translated
chathak as determined and not cut off did so because the connection between Daniel 8 and
Daniel 9 was not evident to them. He states:
Why, then, it may be asked, did our translators render the word determined, when it so obviously means cut
off? The answer is, They doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth chapters
[emphasis added], and considering it improper to render it cut off, when nothing was given from which the
seventy weeks could be cut off, they gave the word its tropical instead of its literal meaning.19

Translations are as reliable as the translators and cannot be presented as the ultimate
evidence for a preferred rendition of a word in specific biblical context. If that were not so, the
simple fact that no modern Bible translation in the main world languages have favored the
translation cut off to the translation determine should be considered more than sufficient
evidence that the reading cut off for chathak does not rank even as the fourth option in the
translation of Daniel 9:24. No translation has even come close to the rendition of chathak as cut

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 7

off instead of the most common rendition as determined that seems prevalent among the
current international translations:
Eight English Bibles (GNV, KVJ, WEB, LXE, YLT, NKJ, RBW, and NLT) translate
chathak as determined; Fifteen English Bibles (DBY, DRA, ASV, JPS, ESV, NAB, NAS,
NAU, NIB, NIV, NJB, NRS, RSV, TNK, and BBE) translate chathak as decreed; One English
Bible (BBE), translates chathak as fixed, one (DBY) as apportioned, and one, (DRA), as
shortened. Four French Bibles (BFC, LSG, NEG, and TOB) translate chathak as t fixe,
one French Bible (DRB) translates chathak as t dtermines, and one French Bible (FBI)
translates chathak as assignees. Four German Bibles (EIN, ELB, ELO, and LUO) translate
chathak as bestimmt, one German Bible (LUT) as verhngt, and one German Bible (SCH) as
verordnet. Two Italian Bibles, (NRV and IEP) translate chathak as sono fissate, and one
(LND) as sono stabilite. The Romanian Bible (CNS) translates chathak as au fost hotrte.
Four Spanish Bibles (R60, R95, RVA, and SRV) translate chathak as determinadas, and one
(LBA) as decretadas.20
chathak Translation
determined
decreed
fixed
apportioned
shortened
t fixe
t dtermines
assignees
bestimmt
verhngt
verordnet
sono fissate
sono stabilite
au fost hotrte
determinadas
decretadas

Bible Version
GNV, KVJ, WEB, LXE, YLT, NKJ, RBW, NLT (8)
DBY, DRA, ASV, JPS, ESV, NAB, NAS, NAU, NIB, NIV, NJB,
NRS, RSV, TNK, BBE (15)
BBE (1)
DBY (1)
DRA (1)
BFC, LSG, NEG, TOB (4)
DRB (1)
FBI (1)
EIN, ELB, ELO, LUO (4)
LUT (1)
SCH (1)
NRV, IEP (2)
LND (1)
CNS (1)
R60, R95, RVA, SRV (4)
LBA (1)

From the renditions above, it seems quite obvious that all the translators of the listed
international versions have doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth
chapters,21 because for them the preferred translation choice for the word chathak has been the
word determined or something rather close, and not cut off. How much should we depend on
their choice and their interpretation of Daniel 9:24? The most intelligent and reasonable
conclusion would be that if so many translators have preferred the rendition determine over the
translation cut off, their choice should perhaps encourage us to look again at our preferred
interpretation and make sure that it is not us who have overlooked something. At least this is
what scholars often do. We need to ask ourselves: Are all these bible translators and interpreters
less trained, less knowledgeable, and less rigorous than we, historicists, are? That would be hard

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 8

to believe, and even harder to support with appropriate evidence. It would be an obvious
indication of intellectual arrogance and condescendence towards all those men who have
dedicated quite a lot of time and effort in the translation of the Bible into all those different
English version and international languages.
Ellen G. White
The second group of arguments that support the rendition to cut off for the Hebrew
word chathak comes from Ellen White and her inspired counsel. She states:
After bidding Daniel "understand the matter, and consider the vision," the very first words of the angel are:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy City." The word here translated
"determined" literally signifies "cut off."[emphasis added] Seventy weeks, representing 490 years, are
declared by the angel to be cut off, as specially pertaining to the Jews. But from what were they cut off? As
the 2300 days was the only period of time mentioned in chapter 8, it must be the period from which the
seventy weeks were cut off; the seventy weeks must therefore be a part of the 2300 days, and the two
periods must begin together. The seventy weeks were declared by the angel to date from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. If the date of this commandment could be found, then the
starting point for the great period of the 2300 days would be ascertained. 22

Ellen White does not offer any empirical support for her statement that the word here
translated determined literally signifies cut off, but makes the claim as a factual and
indisputable truth that should never be questioned or disputed. But is her claim correct? What
does literally signifies mean, and what are the implications of this claim unsupported with
evidence? The Oxford English Dictionary [further, OED] defines to signify as to be a sign or
symbol of; to represent, betoken, mean, and the word seems to be misused in this context
because to cut off, in relation to time is not a literal expression, but a figure of speech written
in non-literal language. Time is not matter that can be cut. One cannot cut a time period, but
can allocate it for different purposes. Ellen Whites support for the reading of the word cchathak
as cut off and not determined in Daniel 9:24 is therefore established on a logical
contradiction and not on empirical, factual evidence but on a wild speculation picked from Uriah
Smith. Her prophetic gift fails to operate in this case.
Jacques Doukhan
Doukhan is another SDA non-empirical historicist who examines and discusses the
rendition of the Hebrew word chathak in Daniel 9:24. He states:
If the prophecy of Dan 8 (hazon) points to a time of end, and if the prophecy of the 70 weeks indicates its
starting point, then the period of the 70 weekswhich does not reach the endmust be understood as a
smaller segment than the first one. In this way we may interpret the hapax legomenon htk as a cutting off, a
portion from something else. 11 Thus the period in Dan 9 is part of a whole. In this way the contextual data
must be taken into consideration here.23

The first thing we notice in the short quote above is that Doukhans statements about the
meaning of the word chathak are replete with speculations and qualifications. He uses if two
times, then, (as a logical deduction) once, and may once again. These conditional terms
indicate that his claims are based in probabilities, assumptions, and guesses, and not in empirical
evidence when he makes his choice concerning the interpretation of the Hebrew word. This is
what happens when theologians depend on personal opinions and not on empirical, factual

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 9

evidence to support an illegitimate theological perspective. If certain assumptive and whimsical

conditions are met, then the writer may interpret the hapax legomenon htk as a cutting off, but
not before those false assumptions are pronounced to be factual. In support of his speculative
claim that if those impossible and unattainable conditions are met, the Hebrew term chathak
should be read as a cutting off, Doukhan refers the readers to the following speculative and
fallacious note at the bottom of the page:
This meaning is supported by rabbinic literature [emphasis added] which uses the word in the niphal
with the sense of amputated (cf. m. Hul. 4: 6). Moreover, most of the rabbinic usages of this root
[emphasis added] express this idea of amputation, related to slaughtering, etc. The denominative hatikah
from the verb means only piece, portion (cf. b. Hul. 31b, b. Her. 17b, etc.). See also the cognate Hebrew
words htr (Ezek 8: 8) and hth (Ps 52: 7), which contain the same connotation of cutting off, piercing, etc.
In cognate languages, the situation is not clear. Akkadian attests chathakum, translated entscheiden in
AHW, s.v. chathakum 1: 335. Ugaritic attests the form htk in the sense of father and son (see C. H.
Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook [Rome, 1965], s.v. htk, p. 399, no. 911). In Arabic, we find the most
interesting witness in connection with our concern: chathak to walk fast, with short steps; to cut off,
scrape or shave off; emaciated, slender (see W. Lane, ed., Arabic-English Lexicon [New. York, 1956], s.v.
"chathak," bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 510, col. 3).24

The arguments Doukhan proposes for the historicist rendition cut off rather than
determined come from the Hebrew words usage in the rabbinic literature and in some cognate
languages. These examples indicate that some words derived from the root htk are used in certain
contexts to mean amputated, piece, portion, cut off, pierce, etc. What word definition
would be most appropriate for the context in Daniel 9:24? Amputate, pierce, piece, or
portion? And how could the SDA historicist make an informed decision about the words
appropriate usage in Daniel 9:24 when all he has done is to examine how the Hebrew word has
been used in other and different contexts when the meaning of a word is to the largest degree
determined by its specific context? It becomes more than obvious that Doukhans usage
examples are not adequate for a decision about the proper translation of the word chathak in
Daniel 9:24 and cannot be considered appropriate evidence that would support his speculative
position.
William H. Shea
Shea is another SDA historicist that presents evidence in DARCOM volume 3 that
claims to support the rendition cut off instead of determine for the Hebrew word chathak,
and his arguments are also based on the words root definition or sense. He makes the ludicrous
error to assimilate this words root definition with the words meaning in context. States Shea:
4. The verb cut off, The verb used by Gabriel in his first statement about the 70 weeks is a passive
(Niphal) form of the root chathak (seventy weeks are determined upon thy people). This root means
either to cut off or to determine, decree. Because this is the only passage in the OT where the word
occurs, its meaning here has been disputed.
The meaning of determine, decree has been derived from Mishnaic Hebrew that dates a millennium
later than Daniels time [emphasis added]. However, even in Mishnaic writings the term was more
commonly used with the meaning of cut off.
It is a recognized principle of Semitic philology that the extended meanings of Semitic verbs develop from
concrete meanings in the direction of abstract concepts. Thus, it is sound to infer that the root meaning of

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 10

this word involved the concrete idea of cutting. The abstract ideas of determining or decreeing are the later
development from this root idea. In Daniels time, therefore, this word already meant to cut. Whether the
extended meaning of decree, determine had developed by then, cannot be determined at present due to a
lack of comparative evidence.
The only significant comparative material, from Ugariti Canaanite of the thirteenth century B.C., lends
some support to the idea that this root's basic verbal notion was that of cutting, not decreeing or
determining. Thus, these three lines of evidence(1) root meaning over extended meaning, (2) the case of
a Ugaritic cognate, and (3) the predominant meaning in later Mishnaic sourcesall favor (but do not fully
prove) that this verb should be translated cut off here. Its apparent meaning emphasizes the idea that the
70 weeks were understood to be cut off from the 2300 days mentioned in the preceding prophecy.
These two prophetic time periods of the 70 weeks and the 2300 days (chaps. 8-9) can be related directly.
They are linked by prophetic terminology (mar'eh), their locations in the literary structure of Daniel (the
juxtaposition of the time units), their start in the same historical period (Persia), and by the opening verb
used with the time period of the second prophecy (batak, cut off). Supplementary support for the
meaning of chathak can be derived from its location within this prophecy as follows: From a literary
viewpoint this word for cut (chathak) is balanced by another verb for cut (karat,) that occurs in verse
26a. The word used for decree in this prophecy (haras) in verses 26b, 27b is balanced by its homonym
moat (harus) in, verse 25c. Those interested in further information on the relations between chapters 8
and 9 may consult my more detailed study of this subject in The Sanctuary and the Atonement.1325

In the quoted paragraphs Shea accepts that the Hebrew root chathak means either to cut
off or to determine, decree, that is, that the above root has two lexical definitions or senses,
although he does not use technical linguistic terms to refer to these lexical properties but instead
refers to these definitions and senses as word meanings. He also argues that because the word
is a hapax [single occurrence] in the Bible, it would not be possible to compare text with text
and establish what the word would mean in a different context. What Shea misses in his
spurious claim is that even if the Hebrew word chathak were used in other contexts with the
meaning cut off, this would be irrelevant for a valid conclusion about what the word would
mean in Daniel 9:24 because contexts are different and each specific context defines the meaning
of a word in a unique way. The hermeneutical approach based on word comparison is an
outdated, imprecise, and unscientific method that quite often causes text misinterpretation. The
only sure approach towards the understanding of the meaning of the word chathak in Daniel 9:24
is the examination of the words immediate and peculiar context.
As for the meanings of chathak derived from Mishnaic Hebrew that dates a
millennium later than Daniels time, the linguistic problem with such a comparison is the
introduction of the language change variable into the interpretation. There can be no argument
that all languages change with time, and the words change with them. We must, then, ask: How
similar and different are Daniels Hebrew and the Mishnaic Hebrew considering that the second
is a millennium older? A look into the lexical changes that have occurred in the English language
could give us an idea about how dangerous it is to compare word definitions so far apart in a
language. Shea, an archeologist, is not able to do comparative linguistics on the two language
varieties and evaluate how language change affects words along the time, and therefore draws
erroneous conclusions from his inadequate and improper comparisons based on tendentious
assumptions and wild speculations, and not on empirical and factual linguistic data that would
provide rigorous scientific support to his absurd and ridiculous claims.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 11

States Campbell concerning the semantic or lexical change that has occurred in the
English language with the word cupboard between Middle English and Modern English
through word generalization or extension:
In semantic changes involving widening, the range of meanings of a word increases so that the word can be
used in more contexts than were appropriate for it before the change. Changes from more concrete to more
abstract meaning fits here
(3) Cupboard. In Middle English times [late 12th and the late 15th century], cupboard meant a table
[board) upon which cups and other vessels were placed, a piece of furniture to display plates, a
sideboard, whose meaning then became a closet or cabinet with shelves for keeping cups and dishes, and
finally in America it changed to mean any small storage cabinet. In parts of Canada, cupboard has been
extended to mean also what others call a wardrobe or clothes closet. 26

Shea is forced to acknowledge the empirical fact that the abstract ideas of determining
or decreeing are the later development from this root [cut off] idea. In Daniel's time, therefore,
this word already meant to cut. Whether the extended meaning of decree, determine had
developed by then, cannot be determined at present due to a lack of comparative evidence,27
and could be at most speculated or assumed. He then claims more half-baked, speculative, and
unreliable evidence, the cognates, and states that, The only significant comparative material,
from Ugariti Canaanite of the thirteenth century B.C., lends some support [emphasis added] to
the idea that this roots basic verbal notion was that of cutting, not decreeing or determining.28
He forgets that cognate comparative work requires advanced linguistic expertise and should be
approached with caution because cognates are often unreliable as comparative linguistic
material. States Campbell about some cognates that appear dependable at first sight and then
confuse and embarrass the language learners:
Those who learn other languages often ask how true cognates can come to have such different meanings in
related languages, as in the English-German cognates town/Zaun fence, timber/Zimmer room, bone/Bein
leg, write/reissen to tear, rip. They ask why the seemingly innocent French word such as baiser, which
the dictionary says means to kiss has changed its meaning to to copulate with no warning to save the
unsuspecting language learner from embarrassment.29

The sum of Sheas investigation on the verb chathak is contained in one paragraph that
brings together what the SDA historicist believes to be undeniable evidence that the Hebrew verb
chathak should rendered cut off and not determined in Daniel 9:24, but is in fact an
assumptive, predetermined, and biased sectarian deduction that makes a desperate and futile
attempt to connect two literal prophetic times, Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:27 into a spurious
prophetic time panorama that would allow the SDAs to set the time of the Second Advent:
Thus, these three lines of evidence(1) root meaning over extended meaning, (2) the case of a Ugaritic
cognate, and (3) the predominant meaning in later Mishnaic sourcesall favor (but do not fully prove) that
this verb should be translated cut off here. Its apparent meaning emphasizes the idea that the 70 weeks
were understood to be cut off from the 2300 days mentioned in the preceding prophecy. 30

The main prophetic interpretation problems that result from these lines of evidence are
due to ignorance in linguistic matters, and have been described in detail in previous comments
made in this paper, but are reiterated below for added emphasis and clarification:

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 12

(1) The lexicon can provide the exegete at most with a words lexical definition or sense. This
definition or sense is context independent and does not define the words meaning. The words
meaning results from its usage, which is the words interaction with the specific context in which
the word is embedded. It is inaccurate and inexpert to equate a words definition or sense with
its meaning in context, or usage, because there is no word meaning without context.
(2) Comparisons between words in different contexts are unreliable and cannot constitute
proof for or against a certain usage, because unlike the words definition or sense that are
context independent the words meaning or usage depends on the context and cannot be
established without the context within which the word has been embedded. All contexts are
different and specific. Context comparison is always an approximation even when those contexts
have developed the same topic and are quite similar. No two contexts are identical.
(3) The Mishnaic sources are written in a Hebrew language one thousand years older than the
Hebrew in which the book of Daniel was written. Languages change, and words change with
them. One or two examples of usage that seems to fit the meaning of chathak in Daniel 9 are
not reliable confirmation in favor of a preferred meaning or usage of a word.
The SDABC Authors
The next arguments in favor of the reading to cut off instead of to determine come
from the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary [further, SDABC] volume 4 that includes
comments on the word chathak in Daniel 9:24. State the SDABC authors:
Are determined. Heb. chathak, a word occurring only here in the Bible. It occurs in post-Biblical Hebrew
with the meaning to cut, to cut off, to determine, to decree. The LXX has krino, to decide, to
judge, etc. Theodotions version has suntemno, to shorten, to abbreviate, etc., which meaning is
reflected in the Vulgate reading abbreviare. The exact shade of meaning here intended must be determined
from the context. In view of the fact that ch. 9 is an exposition of the unexplained portion of the vision of
ch. 8 (see on ch. 9:3, 2123), and inasmuch as the unexplained portion had to do with the 2300 days, it is
logical to conclude that the 70 weeks, or 490 years, were to be cut off from that longer period.
Furthermore, in the absence of contrary evidence, it may be assumed that the 70 weeks would be cut off
from the beginning of that period. Viewed in the light of these observations, the translation of chathak as
to cut seems singularly appropriate. In so far as the 490 years were especially assigned to the Jews with
respect to their role as Gods chosen people, the translations determine and decree are also appropriate
to the context.31

The arguments the SDABC authors advance to support the rendition cut off rather than
determined for the word chathak are similar to those Smith, Ellen White, Doukhan, and Shea
have proposed, and are based on a few unconfirmed historicist assumptions. These assumptions
are that (1) ch. 9 is an exposition of the unexplained portion of the vision of ch. 8 (see on ch.
9:3, 2123), that (2) the unexplained portion had to do with the 2300 days, and that (3) the
70 weeks, or 490 years, were to be cut off from that longer period. The facts, though, do not
support this speculative historicist perspective. Daniel 9 is not an appendix to Daniel 8, and the
70 week prophecy is not part of an assumed 2300 days (years) prophetic time period that
would end in 1844. No genuine historical event that would validate a prophetic interpretation
that would connect Daniel 8:14 with Daniel 9:24-24, would make 1844 a prophetic landmark,
and would confirm the SDA interpretation for Daniel 8 and 9 occurred in 1844.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 13

It would be better to state that the SDA historicist interpretation for Daniel demands the
connection between chapters 8 and 9 in order to reach certain pre-established conclusions, rather
than to say that the textual exegesis provides incontrovertible evidence in favor of the connection
between Daniel 8 and 9. There is much more scientific and solid opposing evidence that
demonstrates that Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 are distinct and discrete chapters in the Book of Daniel
and that their connection is nothing more than the natural association between the chapters of the
same book indicated through the natural language coherence and cohesion expected from the text
or discourse of a book written on a unified theme.
SDA Believe
The final proposed support in favor of the reading cut off for chathak that will be
mentioned in this paper is the one in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe. The writers of this
book state that:
The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were determined, or decreed (RSV, NASB, NIV), for the Jews and
Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24). The underlying Hebrew verb is chathak. Although this verb is used only once in the
Scriptures, its meaning can be understood from other Hebrew sources.40 The well-known Hebrew-English
dictionary by Gesenius states that properly it means to cut or to divide.41 32432

The books authors then point to the footnotes on the page and claim that more
supportive evidence for the SDA historicist proposed reading is available there:
40Analysis of Hebrew writings such as the Mishnah reveals that although chathak can mean determine,
the more common meaning has to do with the idea of cutting (Shea, The relationship Between the
Prophecies of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9, in Sanctuary and Atonement, p. 242).[back] [top]
41Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P. Tregelles
(Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), p. 314.[back] [top]33

The facts that seem to surface in the above SDA Believe paragraphs are either language
ignorance and incompetence or utter deception. The statements in the text and in the footnotes
are falsifications of the facts concerning possible corroborative linguistic support for the reading
of chathak as cut off from the cited sources. Geseniuss Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon defines
chathak as shown below:
Chathak properly TO CUT, TO DIVIDE, as in Ch. and Rab. (cogn. To the roots which begin with cts, ct,
cts) hence to decree, to determine.
NIPHAL pass. Dan. 9:24, seventy weeks nihtak al amka are determined (and shall come) upon thy
people. Thedor. and Gr. Venet. sinetmithesan tetmentai. LXX ekritesan.34

Again, from the complete entry of the word chathak in Geseniuss lexicon it would be
impossible and disingenuous to draw the conclusion the German linguist subscribed to the
Seventh-day Adventist Believe claim that chathak should be read cut off. The facts seem to be
on the opposite side. Genesius states twice in his lexicon that the word chathak should be read to
decree, to determine, and then translates chathak in Daniel 9:24 as to determine in order to
emphasize his position on the meaning of the word chathak in that context. To twist what
Genesius states in his lexicon in order to mean the opposite of what he affirmed does not indicate

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 14

academic honesty or good scholarship. While it is clear that, as the footnote [40] states, analysis
of Hebrew writings such as the Mishnah reveals that although chathak can mean determine, the
more common meaning has to do with the idea of cutting, it is also evident that the exact
shade of meaning here intended must be determined from the context, which means that the
Hebrew writings can offer at most tangential and speculative arguments for the historicist
selective rendition cut off rather than determine.
The historicist evidence provided above concerning the translation of the Hebrew word
chathak as cut off is plagued with a fundamental flaw disregard of the importance of the
immediate context of a word when one attempts to understand the words meaning in a certain
Biblical passage. While it is important to know the lexical definition of the word, it is even more
important to know the words usage, that is, how that word is used in context. Concerning the
words definition, it is good to know how the word is defined in different lexicons, and whether
it has one or more senses. Concerning the words usage, it is important to know how the word
has been used, and when. If the word has two senses, one needs to learn if the word has been
used in both senses, and which usage was more frequent the one in the first sense, or the one
in the second sense. One also needs to find out at what time in the language evolution word was
used past or current. If the word was used in the past, one needs to know how far in the past
was that usage and whether or not the word has had the same meaning then and now. Did the
words lexical meaning change? Did the words usage change? The definitive and final
conclusion about a words meaning in a certain context its semantic value should be drawn
from the specific use of that word in the context in which it has been embedded.
No Meaning without Context
Let us consider, for instance, the word bank. If I read somewhere the following sentence,
He left the car near the bank, and I am not sure what the word bank means in that specific
sentence, I can look the word up in a dictionary such as The Merriam Webster which has the
following entries for the word bank:
1

bank n 1: a piled-up mass (as of cloud or earth) 2: an undersea elevation 3: rising ground bordering a lake,
river, or sea 4: the sideways slope of a surface along a curve or of a vehicle as it rounds a curve.
2

bank n [ME.fr.MF or It: MF banque, fr. It. banca, lit.,bench] 1: an establishment concerned esp. with the
custory, loan, exchange, or issue or money, the extension of credit, and the transmission of funds 2:a stock
of or a place for holding something in reserve (a blood ~). 35

Now I have quite a lot of definition information about the word bank, but this does not
seem to make matters clearer concerning what the word means in the sentence He left the car
near the bank. The sentence still remains opaque. Perhaps it might help of I did an Internet
search for the word bank in various contexts? Not much help would come from that Internet
search! I could learn that the word is used quite a lot in all senses, but more often, at the present
time, in the sense of financial institution. Still, I will not able to know the words intended
referent or the object in the world which is picked out by a noun phrase serving as a referring
expression.36 It seems that looking for definitions in all the available dictionaries, or searching
for the words use in various contexts will lead to a dead end because all the collected
information will not provide me with the words referent, and only that information could help
me decode the sentence. It becomes clear that unless I am provided with an appropriate context

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 15

that will include the intended referent for the word bank, the sentence will remain opaque. I
will never be able to decode it and understand what the word bank was intended to mean in the
narrow context of that sentence.
The same situation seems to apply to the word chathak in Daniel 9:24. What matters in
the final instance is not the words lexical definitions or senses in various lexicons, or even the
words usage in the rabbinical literature or other Biblical or unbiblical sources, but how the word
was used in the Daniel 9:24 passage or what was its intended referent in that specific context, for
the clarification or disambiguation of that contexts meaning. It does not matter, in fact, how the
word was used in all the other contexts because all contexts are different and because various
contexts have their own specific referents. The conclusion is that we need to return to the
immediate context of the word chathak if we want to understand what the word means. No other
approach will help in the clarification of the intended meaning of the word and the
disambiguation of its immediate context, and then also in the larger context of chapter 9 in the
book of Daniel.
This is even more so the case with chathaks use in Daniel than with the usage of the
word bank because no current word usage appears to be available from Daniels time. All the
usage information that is available is from a later Hebrew, and there is little information that
allows us to decide how much the definition and the usage of the word chathak have changed
from Daniels time and until the time of those sources. Language changes, and word definitions
and uses change also with time. The information collected on chathak from later usage of the
word would be at most unreliable if not misleading for the understanding of the meaning of the
message in Daniel 9:24 and never useful.
Conclusion
The SDA historicist arguments that propose the English translation cut off rather than
determine for the Hebrew word chathak suffer from grave and unacceptable interpretation
errors due to ignorance and incompetence in linguistic matters. The SDA historicist claims
depend on the lexical root definitions or senses of the root htk and on the altered post-Biblical
Hebraic usage of the word, and show inadequate consideration for the immediate context of the
word chathak in Daniel 9:24 in favor of a predetermined and speculative SDA historicist
interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9 that seems to be based in whole or in part on Ellen G. Whites
amateurish and inept interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9.
There are numerous facts that dispute the SDA historicist claim that the Hebrew word
should be read as cut off. Among them is the verified and true linguistic evidence that the
definition or sense of a word is different from the meaning or usage of a word in context, the fact
that the cognate support is at best scarce if not misleading, and the fact that most is not all
modern Bible translations render chathak as determine instead of cut off because the
translators did not accept the historicist claims that that the chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel are merged
or fused, that Daniel 9 is an appendix to Daniel 8, that the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24 should be
cut off from Daniel 8:14, and that a verifiable historical event occurred in 1844.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 16

References
1

D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9-10.

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 8:9.
3

Gary A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental
Society, 1990), 35.
4

D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 15-16.

Gennaro Cherchia and Sally McConnell-Ginet, Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to

Semantics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 62.
6

R. L. Trask, A Students Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997), 65.

Richard Hudson, Word Meaning (New York: Routledge, 1995), 24.

Ibid., 25.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, New Edition (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster,

Incorporated, 1994).
10

Richard Hudson, Word Meaning (New York: Routledge, 1995), 7 box.

11

R. L. Trask, A Students Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997),
50.
12

Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1983), 204 -205.
13

D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 23.

14

Gennaro Cherchia and Sally McConnell-Ginet, Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to

Semantics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 62.
15

D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8-9.

16

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 215-217.
17

Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P.
Tregelles (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), 314.
18

19

Michael S. Bushell, and Michael D. Tan., BibleWorks 5.0.00 BibleWorks, 2002.

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 217.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 17

20

Geneva Bible (GNV, 1599); King James (KJV, 1611/1769); The Webster Bible (WEB, 1833);
LXX English Translation (LXE, Brenton, 1851); Young's Literal Translation (YLT, 1862/1898);
New King James Version (NKJ, 1982); Revised Webster Update (RWE, 1995); New Living
Translation (NLT, 1996); American Standard Version (ASV, 1901); Jewish Publication Society
OT (JPS, 1917); English Standard Version (ESV, 2001); The New American Bible (NAB, 1970);
New American Standard Bible with Codes (NAS, 1977); New American Standard Bible (NAU,
1995); New International Version (NIV, 1979); New International Version (NIV,1984); The
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB, 1985); New Revised Standard Version (NRS, 1989); The Bible in
Basic English (BBE, 1949/64); The Darby Bible (DBY, 1884/1890); The Douay-Rheims
American Edition (DRA, 1899); French Bible en franais courant (BFC, 1997); French Louis
Segond (LSG, 1910); Nouvelle Edition Geneve (NEG, 1979); French Traduction Oecumnique
de la Bible (TOB, 1988); French Version Darby (1885); French Bible Jerusalem (FBJ, 2001);
Einheitsbersetzung (EIN, 1980); Revidierte Elberfelder (ELB, 1993); Unrevidierte Elberfelder
(ELO, 1905); Luther Bibel (LUO, 1912); Revidierte Lutherbibel (LUT, 1984); German
Schlachter Version (SCH, 1951); La Sacra Biblia Nuova Riveduta (NRV, 1994); NVB San Paolo
Edizione (IEP, 1995); La Nuova Diodati (LND, 1991); Romanian Bible (CNS, Cornilescu);
Spanish Reina-Valera Revised (R60,1960); Spanish Reina-Valera Update (R95, 1995); ReinaValera Actualizada (RVA, 1989); Reina-Valera (SRV, 1909); La Biblia de Las Americas (LBA,
1986).
21

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 217.
22

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1950), 326.
23

Jacques Doukhan, The Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study, in Andrews

University Seminary Studies, volume XVII, number 1, Spring 1979, 6:1.
24

Ibid., 6:2.

25

William H. Shea, The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1986), 107-108.
26

Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
2004), 254.
27

William H. Shea, The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1986), 107-108.
28

29

Ibid.

Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
2004), 253.

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 18

30

William H. Shea, The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1986) , 107-108.
31

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 at Daniel 9:21,
sub-point 5 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version.
32

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical

Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines second edition (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 2005), 358-359.
33

Ibid.

34

Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P.
Tregelles (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), 314.
35

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, New Edition (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster,

Incorporated, 1994). Bank.
36

R. L. Trask, A Students Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997),
185.