Grammar Analysis: Daniel 8:13–14 (Holy-Ones' Dialogue)

Context-neutral passage analysis. This entry describes the morphology, clause architecture, and discourse structure of the heavenly-ones' exchange that frames the 2,300 evening-mornings number. It focuses on the dialogue as a structured question-and-answer unit (speaker A → speaker B) — complementing dan-8-14, which treats v.14 in isolation. Interpretive schools (Antiochean / historicist / futurist) and day-year vs. literal-day readings are catalogued, not adjudicated.

Five grammatical features drive the analysis:

1. Two-speaker narrative frame — v.13 opens with a 1cs wayyiqtol of שׁמע ("and I heard") making Daniel the overhearing auditor; a second wayyiqtol (וַיֹּאמֶר) then introduces holy-one-1 speaking to the addressed palmoni (חַד־קָדוֹשׁ לַפַּלְמוֹנִי הַמְדַבֵּר). V.14 picks up the palmoni's answer with another bare wayyiqtol of אמר — but with 1cs complement אֵלַי ("to me"). The speech-partner shifts mid-exchange: the question is spoken between two holy ones, but the answer is delivered to Daniel.
2. The question עַד־מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם — verbless interrogative nominal clause (NmCl) whose surface subject is הֶחָזוֹן ("the vision"), with post-posed specifying nouns (תָּמִיד, פֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם) defining the scope of the vision being asked about.
3. The answer עַד עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת — elliptical time-phrase (Ellp) lacking any finite verb; its עַד-preposition mirrors the עַד of the question, creating a syntactic lock-and-key that binds answer scope to question scope.
4. The numeral אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת — Noun.dual.Abs + conjunctive waw + Noun.s.Cst + Noun.fp.Abs = 2,000 + 300 = 2,300 units, with the unit supplied by the preceding unarticled pair עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר.
5. The verdict clause וְנִצְדַּק קֹדֶשׁ — weqatal-X (Niphal.Perf.3ms + subject) structurally coordinated with the time-phrase, supplying the only finite verb in the answer's direct-speech domain (Q).

---

Text

Daniel 8:13 (Hebrew):

וָאֶשְׁמְעָ֥ה אֶֽחָד־קָדֹ֖ושׁ מְדַבֵּ֑ר וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אֶחָ֨ד קָדֹ֜ושׁ לַפַּֽלְמֹונִ֣י הַֽמְדַבֵּ֗ר עַד־מָתַ֞י הֶחָזֹ֤ון הַתָּמִיד֙ וְהַפֶּ֣שַׁע שֹׁמֵ֔ם תֵּ֛ת וְקֹ֥דֶשׁ וְצָבָ֖א מִרְמָֽס׃

KJV: Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Daniel 8:14 (Hebrew):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י עַ֚ד עֶ֣רֶב בֹּ֔קֶר אַלְפַּ֖יִם וּשְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵאֹ֑ות וְנִצְדַּ֖ק קֹֽדֶשׁ׃

KJV: And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

---

Word-by-Word Parsing

Daniel 8:13

#	Hebrew	Lemma	Parsing	Gloss
1	וָ	ו	Conj	and
2	אֶשְׁמְעָה	שׁמע	Verb.Qal.Wayq.1s	I heard
3	אֶחָד	אחד	Noun.s.Abs	one
4	קָדוֹשׁ	קדושׁ	Adj.ms.Abs	holy one
5	מְדַבֵּר	דבר	Verb.Piel.Ptcp.ms.Abs	speaking
6	וַ	ו	Conj	and
7	יֹּאמֶר	אמר	Verb.Qal.Wayq.3ms	he said
8	אֶחָד	אחד	Noun.s.Abs	one
9	קָדוֹשׁ	קדושׁ	Adj.ms.Abs	holy one
10	לַ	ל	Prep	to
11	(הַ)	ה	Art	the
12	פַּלְמוֹנִי	פלמני	Noun.ms.Abs	(the) certain-one / palmoni
13	הַ	ה	Art	the
14	מְדַבֵּר	דבר	Verb.Piel.Ptcp.ms.Abs	speaking
15	עַד	עד	Prep	until / how-long
16	מָתַי	מתי	Introg	when
17	הֶ	ה	Art	the
18	חָזוֹן	חזון	Noun.ms.Abs	vision
19	הַ	ה	Art	the
20	תָּמִיד	תמיד	Noun.ms.Abs	continual (sacrifice)
21	וְ	ו	Conj	and
22	הַ	ה	Art	the
23	פֶּשַׁע	פשׁע	Noun.ms.Abs	transgression
24	שֹׁמֵם	שׁמם	Verb.Qal.Ptcp.ms.Abs	desolating
25	תֵּת	נתן	Verb.Qal.InfCon.Abs	to give
26	וְ	ו	Conj	and
27	קֹדֶשׁ	קדשׁ	Noun.ms.Abs	sanctuary / holy-place
28	וְ	ו	Conj	and
29	צָבָא	צבא	Noun.ms.Abs	host
30	מִרְמָס	מרמס	Noun.ms.Abs	trampling / trodden

Daniel 8:14

#	Hebrew	Lemma	Parsing	Gloss
1	וַ	ו	Conj	and
2	יֹּאמֶר	אמר	Verb.Qal.Wayq.3ms	he said
3	אֵלַי	אל	Prep.+1cs	to me
4	עַד	עד	Prep	unto
5	עֶרֶב	ערב	Noun.ms.Abs	evening
6	בֹּקֶר	בקר	Noun.ms.Abs	morning
7	אַלְפַּיִם	אלף	Noun.dual.Abs	two-thousand
8	וּ	ו	Conj	and
9	שְׁלֹשׁ	שׁלשׁ	Noun.s.Cst	three (of)
10	מֵאוֹת	מאה	Noun.fp.Abs	hundreds
11	וְ	ו	Conj	and
12	נִצְדַּק	צדק	Verb.Niphal.Perf.3ms	be vindicated / justified
13	קֹדֶשׁ	קדשׁ	Noun.ms.Abs	sanctuary / holy-place

Parser-verified via hebrew_parser.py --verse "Dan 8:13" and --verse "Dan 8:14".

---

Clause Structure (ETCBC/BHSA)

Daniel 8:13

#	Type	Domain	Text (summary)	Function
1	Way0 (wayyiqtol)	N (narration)	וָאֶשְׁמְעָה אֶחָד־קָדוֹשׁ	Daniel's overhearing — 1cs Qal.Wayq of שׁמע; object = "one holy one"
2	Ptcp	N	מְדַבֵּר	Piel participle complement of hearing-verb
3	WayX (wayyiqtol-X)	N	וַיֹּאמֶר אֶחָד קָדוֹשׁ לַפַּלְמוֹנִי	Report-verb introducing direct speech; subject = second holy-one, complement = articular palmoni
4	Ptcp (Rela)	N	הַמְדַבֵּר	Articular participle attributive to palmoni — "the speaking one"
5	NmCl (verbless)	Q (quotation)	עַד־מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם	The question: time-interrogative + subject NP
6	InfC	Q	תֵּת	Infinitive-construct of נתן — purpose/result "to give"
7	NmCl	Q	וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס	Predicate-nominal "sanctuary and host — a trampling"

Daniel 8:14

#	Type	Domain	Text	Function
1	Way0	N	וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי	Speaker-addressee frame (speaker = same palmoni; addressee shifts to Daniel: 1cs)
2	Ellp (elliptical)	Q	עַד עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת	Verbless time-phrase — the number
3	WQtX (weqatal-X)	Q	וְנִצְדַּק קֹדֶשׁ	Predictive weqatal with Niphal.Perf.3ms + post-posed subject

Parser-verified via hebrew_parser.py --clause "Dan 8:13" and --clause "Dan 8:14".

---

Construct Chains

• v.13: אֶחָד־קָדוֹשׁ (×2) — juxtaposition, effectively construct "one-of-holy-ones" (apposition / binding with maqqef); no true multi-noun genitive chain.
• v.13: פֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם — noun + attributive Qal active participle ("a desolating transgression"), not a construct chain proper.
• v.14: שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת — construct "three-of hundreds" = 300; the canonical multi-hundred numeral pattern (cf. Gen 5:22; Exo 12:37; Jdg 20:15).

---

Key Grammatical Features

1. Two-Wayyiqtol Narrative Frame (v.13a + v.14a) and the Speaker-Switch

The dialogue is introduced by a back-to-back wayyiqtol pair:

• וָאֶשְׁמְעָה (v.13a, Qal.Wayq.1cs of שׁמע) — Daniel the seer as eavesdropping auditor. The paragogic ה on the 1cs Wayq (אֶשְׁמְעָה rather than bare אֶשְׁמַע) is a stylistic long-form common in Daniel's visionary prose (cf. Dan 8:2, 3; 10:8).
• וַיֹּאמֶר (v.13b, Qal.Wayq.3ms of אמר) — a second holy-one begins to speak.
• וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי (v.14a, same verb) — but now with complement אֵלַי ("to me").

The sequence "holy-one-1 speaks → holy-one-2 asks → holy-one-[2? or palmoni?] answers Daniel" is a three-agent discourse chain. Grammatically, the speaker of 8:14 is whichever antecedent the 3ms verb binds to — either (a) the articular palmoni of v.13 (הַמְדַבֵּר, addressed in the dative by holy-one-1) or (b) holy-one-1 itself (the sub­ject of v.13b). Hebrew pronominal economy does not disambiguate; narrative momentum typically binds a new 3ms wayyiqtol to the last-named subject or to the current addressee-as-next-speaker, yielding the palmoni as the natural speaker of v.14. The KJV "he said unto me" preserves the ambiguity of the 3ms.

The addressee-shift from לַפַּלְמוֹנִי (v.13, "to palmoni") to אֵלַי (v.14, "to me" — Daniel) marks a transition in discourse domain: the question is asked within the heavenly conversation; the answer is delivered to the prophet. This pattern recurs at Dan 12:5–7 (two men + man-above-waters dialogue), where the answer similarly drops into direct address with Daniel as recipient.

Context-neutral: the grammar does not identify palmoni (פַּלְמֹנִי, a hapax — possibly an allomorph of פְּלֹנִי־אַלְמֹנִי "such-and-such/so-and-so," cf. Ruth 4:1; 1 Sa 21:3; 2 Ki 6:8) with any named figure; it marks the addressee as a specific-but-unnamed holy-one whose authority to answer the question is presupposed by the question being directed at him.

2. The עַד־מָתַי Interrogative and the Scope Question

The question is a verbless interrogative nominal clause (NmCl, domain Q):

עַד־מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס

• עַד־מָתַי = preposition עַד ("until") + interrogative adverb מָתַי ("when") — standard lament/prophetic idiom "how long?" (Exo 10:7; Num 14:27; Ps 6:4 [Eng 6:3]; Ps 13:2 [Eng 13:1]; Ps 74:10; Ps 82:2; Hab 1:2). Glossed "how long?" but structurally "until-when?".
• הֶחָזוֹן — articular Noun.ms.Abs, grammatical subject of the verbless clause (the "X" in "how-long [shall be] X?").

The scope question: does the question ask about the whole vision or only its desolation phase?

The grammatical subject is הֶחָזוֹן alone — "the vision." What follows — הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס — is syntactically dependent on הֶחָזוֹן, but how is debated in the grammar:

(a) Epexegetical / appositional reading. הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם stands in apposition to הֶחָזוֹן, restricting the subject to the desolation portion: "how long the vision — [namely,] the continual and the transgression-of-desolation…?" On this reading the question is about the sub-topic of vv.11–12 only (tamid-removal + transgression), not the whole sweep of vv.3–12 (ram + he-goat + little horn).

(b) Unrestrictive topical reading. הַחָזוֹן is the full vision of vv.3–12, and the following nouns specify the destructive elements within that vision without restricting the vision's scope. The question is "how long [will] the [entire] vision [last with its] continual [removed] and [its] desolating-transgression [continuing]…?"

(c) Construct-chain reading (older proposal, e.g., Keil). Some commentators have argued הַחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד construes as a loose construct chain "the vision of the continual," but this is grammatically weak: both nouns carry the article, and Hebrew construct-chains canonically suppress the article on the head noun (Joüon-Muraoka §138b; GKC §127a) — this reading is disfavored by the morphology.

The articular morphology (הַתָּמִיד, הַפֶּשַׁע) and the absence of any construct binding-marker supports (a) or (b), not (c). The grammar itself does not force either (a) or (b); speaker perspective (what did the questioner intend by "the vision"?) and discourse referent (what is "the vision" in v.1–2?) are extra-grammatical.

A strong contextual argument favors the whole-vision reading (b). In v.1–2, Daniel is told he saw "the vision" (הֶחָזוֹן) — referring to the entire panorama of vv.3–12 (ram, goat, little horn, tamid-taking, desolating-transgression). When the holy-one picks up the same articular noun הֶחָזוֹן in v.13, the default anaphoric binding is to the antecedent established in v.1–2 (the whole vision), not to a sub-section. Gabriel's own interpretive speech in v.17 (לְעֶת־קֵץ הֶחָזוֹן "at the time-of-end the vision") and v.26 (מַרְאֵה הָעֶרֶב וְהַבֹּקֶר…אֱמֶת הוּא "the vision of evening-and-morning…is true") treats the ereb-boqer time as identifying the whole vision, not a sub-unit — which is consistent with (b). See dan-8-26 on Gabriel's titular use of הָעֶרֶב וְהַבֹּקֶר for the entire 8:1–25 oracle.

The grammar is compatible with either (a) or (b), but the anaphoric linkage to v.1–2 and Gabriel's own subsequent framing in vv.17, 26 weight the interpretation toward (b) — the question covers the whole vision, with the tamid/transgression/trampling nouns specifying the affliction-features within it rather than restricting its scope.

3. The Infinitive Construct תֵּת and the Verbless Predicate מִרְמָס

• תֵּת (Qal.InfCon of נתן) — infinitive-construct of giving, functioning purposively or resultatively ("to give [up]" / "[by] the giving [of]"). No explicit preposition (לְ) precedes it in the MT — this is unusual; infinitive-constructs usually take לְ. Some manuscripts and the Theodotionic/LXX tradition read לָתֵת (with ל) — suggesting the MT may have a suppressed preposition or that the bare infinitive functions gerundially (GKC §114a).
• וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס — compound subject (קֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא) + predicate-nominal מִרְמָס ("sanctuary and host — a trampling"), verbless NmCl. The structure mirrors the infamous abomination-of-desolation clauses in Dan 11:31 and 12:11 where desolation is expressed nominally rather than verbally.

4. The עַד-Lock Binding the Answer to the Question

The single most important syntactic feature of the dialogue is the repetition of עַד:

• v.13: עַד־מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן… ("until-when the vision…")
• v.14: עַד עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת ("until evening-morning 2,300")

The answer's עַד directly answers the question's עַד־מָתַי. In formal Hebrew question-answer grammar (GKC §150a; Joüon-Muraoka §161), an interrogative עַד־מָתַי is properly answered with עַד + a terminus. This is a syntactic lock-and-key: whatever the subject of the question is, it is the same thing whose terminus is being named in the answer. The 2,300 evening-mornings therefore terminate whatever the question was asking about — whether that is (a) the sub-section (tamid + transgression only) or (b) the whole vision.

Because the question's subject (on reading (b)) is הֶחָזוֹן "the whole vision," the answer's terminus (on reading (b)) is the terminus of the whole vision. This syntactic linkage is one of the strongest grammatical arguments that the 2,300 evening-mornings measure the entire Daniel 8 vision, not merely the tamid-removal sub-period.

5. The Asyndetic Pair עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר — Compound Unit, Not Two Things

See dan-8-14 for the baseline analysis. Summary here:

• Two Noun.ms.Abs forms, no article, no conjunction, no verb.
• Asyndeton (lack of ו between them) is the morphological signal that they form a single compound time-unit, not two separate enumerations.
• Contrast Gen 1:5 (וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר — narrated formula with verb + waw), Dan 8:26 (הָעֶרֶב וְהַבֹּקֶר — articulated + conjunctive, titular label), and Exo 29:39 (בַּבֹּקֶר … בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם — liturgical time-specification with prepositions).
• The bare compound עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר occurs only in Dan 8:14 in the Hebrew Bible — a hapax compound.
• See the CONCLUSION.md of the daniel-8-14-evening-morning-terminology study for the full argument that this compound is a deliberate sanctuary-service coinage echoing Gen 1:5 while mirroring the tamid cycle referenced by the question's הַתָּמִיד.

6. The Numeral אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת — Dual + Conjoined Hundreds

Morphological breakdown:

Component	Parsing	Value	Note
אַלְפַּיִם	Noun.dual.Abs of אלף	2,000	Hebrew dual -ayim = "two-of-X" for paired/natural-dual nouns; with אלף "thousand" the dual = literally "two thousands" = 2,000 (cf. אָלַף "thousand" H505; the dual is a morphological convenience, not a separate lexeme)
וּ	Conj	—	Standard numerical conjunction "and"
שְׁלֹשׁ	Noun.s.Cst of שׁלשׁ	3	Construct "three-of" binding to following hundreds
מֵאוֹת	Noun.fp.Abs of מֵאָה	hundreds	Feminine plural absolute of "hundred" (H3967)

Value: 2,000 + 300 = 2,300 (of whatever unit the context supplies).

The unit attaches grammatically to the preceding pair. Because the numeral comes after the compound עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר, Hebrew number-noun concord places the compound as the counted noun. The number 2,300 enumerates evening-morning units, not some other unspecified referent. This is the straightforward reading of the morphology — the compound is a single time-unit, and 2,300 of them are being counted.

Distributional note on the morphological form. The form אַלְפַּיִם "two thousand" (dual) appears ~62× in the MT (e.g., Jos 3:4; 7:3; 8:12; 1 Ki 5:6 [Eng 4:26]; 1 Ki 7:26; 2 Ki 18:23 ‖ Isa 36:8; 2 Chr 25:6; 26:12; Jer 52:23). The combination X dual-thousands + Y hundreds is the canonical Hebrew way to express numbers in the low thousands with non-round hundreds (e.g., 1 Ki 8:63 twenty-two thousand oxen + hundred-twenty-thousand sheep pattern, 2 Chr 25:6 "an hundred thousand mighty men of valor for an hundred talents of silver"). Daniel 8:14 follows the standard pattern. The number itself is not morphologically unusual — what is unusual is the unit it modifies (the unique עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר compound).

Context-neutral on literal-day vs. year-day. The morphology delivers a pure count of 2,300 evening-morning compound-units. Whether those units are literal 24-hour day-cycles (for a ~6.3 year span) or represent prophetic days standing symbolically for years (via the Num 14:34 / Ezek 4:6 day-year principle, cf. day-year-formula) is determined by the genre of the prophecy and by Gabriel's own sealing framework in v.26 (לְיָמִים רַבִּים, cf. dan-8-26), not by the numeral's grammar alone.

7. The Niphal Perfect וְנִצְדַּק — Passive Voice, Predictive Weqatal, Unique Form

This is the grammatical centerpiece of v.14, treated in baseline form in dan-8-14. Supplementary analysis here:

Morphological analysis:

Feature	Value
Root	צדק (H6663) — "to be just / righteous / vindicated"
Stem	Niphal (N-stem; characteristic נִ prefix + dagesh in 2nd radical)
Tense	Perfect (qatal; suffix-conjugation)
Person/Gender/Number	3ms
Proclitic	וְ conjunctive (→ weqatal)
Clause type	WQtX (weqatal-X) — weqatal predicate followed by subject-noun

Voice — passive: The Niphal is the primary passive stem in Hebrew (Waltke-O'Connor §23.2; Joüon-Muraoka §51a–e). The Niphal of צדק means "to be vindicated / shown-righteous / justified" — the subject receives a judicial verdict rather than performing an action. See stem-niphal for the canonical taxonomy of Niphal functions.

Lexical uniqueness. The Niphal of צדק occurs only here in the entire Hebrew Bible (parser verification: hebrew_parser.py --search "sp=verb vs=nif lex=צדק" returns only Dan 8:14; the root's 500+ occurrences are overwhelmingly Qal verbs, adjective forms צַדִּיק / צֶדֶק / צְדָקָה, and a handful of Hiphil "declare-righteous" forms). The forensic-vindication force is unmistakable — not "cleansed" (that would be טָהֵר H2891 or חָטָא-Piel H2398 as in Exo 29:36; Lev 16:19) and not "atoned" (that would be כָּפַר H3722 as throughout Lev 16). The LXX/Theodotion rendered καθαρισθήσεται ("shall be cleansed"), and the Vulgate followed with mundabitur — but the Hebrew root is judicial, not ritual. See the H6663-tsadaq word study and the TR-tsadaq-dikaioo translation-relation entry.

Tense force — predictive/prophetic weqatal. The conjunctive וְ + perfect (weqatal) in a prophetic direct-speech (Q-domain) context after a time-expression normally carries future-consequent force: "and [then] shall be vindicated…" (Waltke-O'Connor §32.2.3b "predictive weqatal"; Joüon-Muraoka §119c). The grammatical force is not past-narrative. Some grammars classify this specific type as "prophetic perfect" — describing a future event as if already accomplished to convey certainty — but the more precise ETCBC-category is predictive weqatal embedded in direct speech. Either way, the event is future from Daniel's vantage point, certain in its occurrence, and temporally anchored to the terminus of the 2,300 evening-mornings by the preceding עַד-phrase.

Subject: קֹדֶשׁ (Noun.ms.Abs, anarthrous — "sanctuary / holy-place / holiness"). The unarticulated קֹדֶשׁ is syntactically odd if a specific sanctuary is in view (the expected form would be הַקֹּדֶשׁ with article). Three grammatical options:

• (i) Indefinite/categorial: "a [or: the] holy-place shall be vindicated" — treating the anarthrous noun as unmarked for definiteness in poetic/oracular register (GKC §126q — anarthrous proper/definite nouns in poetry).
• (ii) Contextually definite: The sanctuary already in discourse (v.11 מְכוֹן מִקְדָּשׁוֹ "the place of his sanctuary," v.13 קֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא "sanctuary and host") supplies definiteness by anaphora; the article is elided in the oracular compressed register (cf. פַּלְמוֹנִי in v.13).
• (iii) Abstract/quality noun: קֹדֶשׁ as "holiness" rather than "sanctuary" — "holiness shall be vindicated" — treating the noun as the abstract quality rather than the concrete cult-place.

The parser (ETCBC) tags קֹדֶשׁ as Noun.ms.Abs, matching the anarthrous morphology. Most translators take (ii) — contextually definite sanctuary — rendering "the sanctuary shall be cleansed/justified." The grammar permits all three, and the three are not mutually exclusive (a vindication of the sanctuary is at the same time a vindication of holiness as a quality — see H6944-qodesh).

Agent suppressed. The Niphal passive leaves the agent of vindication unexpressed. Hebrew passives rarely name the agent (no stereotyped ὑπό-construction; when named it is with מִן, לְ, or בְּיַד). The agent is the divine judge by theological default (cf. the "divine passive" analog in Greek; see divine-passive for the NT parallel). The grammar leaves open whether the vindication is accomplished by YHWH directly or mediated through a heavenly figure (the "one-like-a-son-of-man" of Dan 7:13, Michael of Dan 10:13 / 12:1, etc.) — but in either case, the subject-qodesh is the recipient, not the performer, of the vindication.

---

Discourse Structure Summary

v.13a  וָאֶשְׁמְעָה (Wayq.1cs)        — Daniel overhears
v.13a  holy-one-1 speaking (Ptcp)   — first speaker introduced
v.13b  וַיֹּאמֶר holy-one-2 לַפַּלְמוֹנִי — second speaker → palmoni (addressee)
v.13b  *palmoni* = "the speaking-one" (definite, already-introduced)
v.13c  QUESTION: עַד־מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן (whole-vision subject per reading b)
v.14a  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי (Wayq.3ms + 1cs complement) — *palmoni* answers Daniel
v.14b  ANSWER: עַד עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת (terminus — 2,300 compound-units)
v.14c  VERDICT: וְנִצְדַּק קֹדֶשׁ (weqatal-X predicting vindication)

Lock-and-key correspondences:

Question (v.13)	Answer (v.14)
עַד־מָתַי	עַד + terminus
הֶחָזוֹן (whole vision per reading b)	בֹּקֶר …-ends at nitsdaq qodesh
הַתָּמִיד (daily-cycle)	עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר (evening-morning, same cycle)
וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס (sanctuary trampled)	וְנִצְדַּק קֹדֶשׁ (sanctuary vindicated)

The fourth row displays a semantic-grammatical inversion: the question closes with קֹדֶשׁ as the passive recipient of מִרְמָס (trampling), and the answer closes with קֹדֶשׁ as the passive recipient of נִצְדַּק (vindication). Same subject, reversed verdict — the most precise grammatical signal that the 2,300 evening-mornings frames the transition from trampled-sanctuary to vindicated-sanctuary.

---

Cross-References

Grammar Library

• stem-niphal — Niphal as passive; נִצְדַּק as hapax Niphal of צדק
• day-year-formula — Num 14:34 / Ezek 4:6 day-year proportion; context-neutral documentation of the hermeneutical key
• vision-introduction-formulas — seeing-verb + hearing-verb patterns in vision-units

Related Passage Analyses

• dan-8-14 — baseline analysis of v.14 in isolation
• dan-8-17-19 — Gabriel's "for at the time-of-end the vision" and "for an appointed time, the end" — providing the temporal frame that binds the 2,300-terminus to the "time-of-end" horizon
• dan-8-23-25 — the little-horn's career whose duration is measured by the 8:14 answer
• dan-8-26 — Gabriel's titular restatement הָעֶרֶב וְהַבֹּקֶר + sealing command לְיָמִים רַבִּים

Word Studies

• H6663-tsadaq — lexical study of צדק and the Niphal hapax נִצְדַּק
• H6944-qodesh — the subject-noun of the verdict clause
• H6153-ereb — evening in sanctuary and creation registers
• H1242-boqer — morning in sanctuary and creation registers
• H8548-tamid — the "continual" whose cycle = one ereb-boqer
• H2377-chazon — the "vision" that the question asks about
• TR-tsadaq-dikaioo — LXX/Theodotion rendering comparison
• TR-ereb-hespera — ereb → Greek equivalents
• TR-qodesh-hagios — qodesh → Greek equivalents

Topical Studies

• dan-8-14-evening-mornings/CONCLUSION.md — full argument for why Daniel uses עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר rather than יָמִים; tamid-connection, Genesis echo, four-time-system distinctness in Daniel, unique pairing with נִצְדַּק

---

Open Grammatical Questions (Non-Adjudicated)

1. Identity of the speaker of v.14a. The 3ms subject of וַיֹּאמֶר is grammatically ambiguous between holy-one-1 and the palmoni. Hebrew narrative convention (last-addressed party becomes next speaker) favors palmoni, but this is pragmatic not strictly morphological.
2. Restrictive vs. unrestrictive reading of v.13's subject NP. Does הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם restrict הֶחָזוֹן (→ answer covers only that sub-period) or specify-within it (→ answer covers the whole vision)? Anaphoric binding to vv.1–2 and Gabriel's framing in vv.17, 26 favor the unrestricted reading; the grammar alone does not force either.
3. Definiteness of קֹדֶשׁ in v.14c. Indefinite-categorial vs. contextually-definite vs. abstract-quality reading are all grammatically licensed. Translation choice among "a sanctuary / the sanctuary / holiness" is under-determined by morphology alone.
4. Exact temporal unit. The morphology gives 2,300 × (ereb-boqer compound-unit). Whether the compound-unit maps one-to-one onto 2,300 literal 24-hour days (~6.3 years), onto 2,300 half-day tamid-cycles (~1,150 days), or onto 2,300 prophetic days symbolizing 2,300 years (day-year principle) is determined by prophetic genre, context, and hermeneutical method — not by grammar.

---

Generated from: hebrew_parser.py (--verse, --clause, --construct, --search), KJV text, ETCBC/BHSA morphology. Complementary to: dan-8-14 (v.14 isolated), dan-8-26 (Gabriel's framing), dan-8-14-evening-mornings/CONCLUSION.md (lexical/topical argument). Last updated: 2026-04-19.