[b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 06:26:22 EST 2008
You mention the claim that "there are some unwarranted assumptions in the
way we view and calculate the 'seventy weeks'", do you care to elucidate?
Assumptions that I have always heard:
1) that when Daniel wrote "seventy sevens" that that referred to 70 * 7
years. Do you disagree?
2) that the beginning of this 490 years is calculated during the
governorship of Nehemiah, do you have another person in mind?
3) that Nehemiah was a contemporary of Ezra, who lived and worked around 400
BC, therefore dating the beginning of the 490 years at the most a couple of
decades prior to 400 BC, on what basis would you disagree with that?
The text itself in this short section mentions only four events (assuming
that it refers to years):
1) It starts with the command to rebuild Jerusalem.
2) 49 years after the beginning of the sequence, an "Anointed Leader" comes
on the scene.
3) After 62 * 7 or between 434 to 441 years after the command, someone
simply called "Anointed" is killed.
4) At the end the city and temple (the holy place) are destroyed in a war
that apparently lasts seven years, midway through which the sacrifices
cease. The destruction was done at the hands of a people of the "future
To me, the fourth event sounds like the seven year war of the Jewish revolt
of 66 AD, making the beginning of the 490 years at 417 BC. That makes
Nehemiah a slightly earlier contemporary of Ezra, just as Nehemiah mentions
(Nehemiah 8:1 and following).
If you agree that the passage refers to 490 years, then when did it start?
Even if you admit it started with Cyrus in the late sixth century BC, its
end is still long after Antiochus IV. Who were the persons mentioned in
events 2) and 3), people who were very important to the history of the
Mid-East, or at least of Judea?
Karl W. Randolph.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM, George Athas <George.Athas at moore.edu.au>wrote:
> Hi Jason!
> I'd disagree with Rolf, and say that most Daniel scholars would be of the
> opinion that Antiochus IV is certainly the focus of the visionary sections
> of the book. There is ample support for this view. However, I'd be
> interested in reading Rolf's view when it is published. I'm not going to
> dismiss his view out of hand (viz. that Antiochus IV is not the focus), but
> I daresay he faces an uphill battle.
> I've got an article on the 'seventy weeks' which I'm hoping to put the
> finishing touches on in the next few weeks. It will be published online by
> JHS very soon. In short, it argues that there are some unwarranted
> assumptions in the way we view and calculate the 'seventy weeks', and offers
> a new configuration of the 'seventy weeks' which works with the narrative
> cues of the book itself and lands smack bang at the time of Antiochus IV.
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney)
> Ph: 9577 9774. Mob: 0449 758 100
More information about the b-hebrew