Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear B-Hebrew Haburim:

This is the (in)famous “70 sevens” text, broken up into the full 70, and
two smaller periods of 7 and 62. Usually the two smaller periods are read
sequentially.

Are there any linguistic reasons not to read those two shorter periods as
concurrent, with the one ending much sooner than the other?

It seems to me that there are strong historical reasons to accept that the
two periods are concurrent.

The command for people to return to Judea in the first year of Cyrus merely
commanded that the temple be rebuilt, Ezra 1:2–4. Other than the temple
itself and a few buildings for support services, Jerusalem the city was not
rebuilt.

The command to rebuild Jerusalem itself (Daniel 9:25) was given to
Nehemiah, chapter 2:5–9. Seeing as Nehemiah was a slightly older
contemporary of Ezra, that makes that command about 417 BC. 49 years later
was the birth of Alexander the Great, the “anointed leader”. If we take the
15th year of Tiberius as including his co-rule years, then the “Anointed”
being cut off would have been after 62x7 years, or after about 17 AD. Then
the final seven years, a time of war and destruction, midway through which
the temple sacrifices came to an end, started in 66 AD and ended in 73 AD.

How many presently accepted dates will be messed up by saying that
Tiberius’ reign includes his years of co-rule? Enough to get secular
recorded history more in line with this prophecy? I know that the dates
given in our history books are not accurate, only approximate, so I won’t
argue them here, nor will I take the bait should others want to argue them.
The question I have here: is there any linguistic reason not to read those
two shorter periods as starting at the same time? Not sequential as is
often popularly taught?

Karl W. Randolph.