The identification of נגיד (ruler or leader) in Daniel 9:25–26 is contested. Some scholars believe they are one and the same person (see Gentry 2018; Steinmann 2008), whereas others identify two different people (Hamilton 2014; Harmann 2007).
Gentry (Gentry 2018, 623) appeals to the lack of “contextual signs” indicating a change of subject. Hamilton (Hamilton 2014,120) on the other hand, finds it strange that the Jewish people would be the primary agents or cause in the destruction of the temple.
By applying the framework of Pragmatics, this proposal seeks to answer the following question: Would an original reader of this text have understood that the very people God is trying to redeem are going to be responsible for the destruction of the temple? I will argue that such a notion would be untenable for the first readers and incompatible with the intent of apocalyptic literature which is that of ultimate encouragement. By implication, there would be two rulers in Dan 9:25-26. One is the Messiah, the other is the one that leads the foreign army to destroy the temple.
According to Pragmatics (Yule 2023, 159) successful communication depends not only on the writer’s ability to refer to things but also on the reader’s ability to recognize the references. This ability on the part of the reader or listener is called inference. So, it is not only a matter of what the author meant, it is also important to explore what the (original) reader would have understood or inferred.