Robert said
This translation capitalizes Messiah, but in the Hebrew it can be merely any anointed person, for example, a high priest that will be killed. What is translated as ‘but not for himself’ in Hebrew is simply ‘and there is nothing for him’, hence the translator is overreaching to try and read into this text some kind of atonement for others. There is nothing in the Hebrew text that implies this is ‘a redeemer who dies for his people’. John Collins and most critical exegetes see this as a reference, not to a or the Messiah, but rather to an ‘anointed’ high priest Onias III (cf 2 Macc 4,23–28, Dan 11,22). A better translation is that the temple was ‘corrupted’, not ‘destroyed’. The temple was not ‘destroyed’ during the time of the Maccabees but it was ‘corrupted’. Same word in Hebrew (שׁחת shxcht). See the NKJV translation of this same word in Gen 6,11-13:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Bart’s favorite translation is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).  

It’s not exactly the same word. It’s a play on words. The earth was corrupt (using the niphal of the root), and God said he would destroy it (using the hiphil of the root). These are not the same words. They are the same roots. It’s like saying that the serpent was naked in Genesis 3:1 or that Adam and Eve were cunning in Genesis 2:25 because the one says עָרוּם (ʿārûm) and the other says עֲרֻמִּים (ʿārummîm). In the niphal, the root שׁח״ת means “be ruined, corrupted,” and the active form that is associated with it is the piel. In the hiphil, it specifically means “to destroy, annihilate.” These are different uses of the root. The hiphil is used in Daniel’s verse, and it certainly is talking about the destruction of the city.

Robert said
It’ll be a cold day in hell before I will argue Hebrew with Jason, and since neither of us believe in hell that’s doubly as unlikely to happen, but perhaps we can take a look at Genesis 6,12:

You’re the only person on this forum who knows who I am. It’s kinda neat being somewhat anonymous. LOL

Robert said

‏ וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְהִנֵּ֣ה נִשְׁחָ֑תָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִ֧ית כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר אֶת־דַּרְכּ֖וֹ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

I haven’t studied Hebrew in 30 years, but the second use of of the verbal root שׁחת is used in the hiphil and it seems to me that here it means corrupted and not destroyed. But perhaps I’m all wet, presumably from the flood waters.

That’s the point… When it is used with darkô, as it is here, it means “corrupted his way,” meaning that he has destroyed his own path by doing the things that are wrong (rather than doing what is right). However, the earth there is described using the niphal, which does carry the idea of something being ruined. It’s important to draw a distinction between how the word is used in the piel and niphal and how it’s used in the hiphil. I’ve uploaded the HALOT entry ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for you to go over.