Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Title: IN SEARCH OF THE SEVENTY ‘WEEKS’ OF DANIEL

Bryant wrote:

"Ezra returned to Jerusalem in 457 BC under Artaxerxes I.The decree to rebuild Jerusalem came in 445 BC to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I. Thus, 483 years (69 x 7) would end about AD 27 ."

Unfortunately, this still gets us nowhere. Who messianically significant died in AD 27? No one. The death of Jesus occurred in AD 33. Are we claiming that the anointed one in Daniel 9 died not at the end of the 62 week period, but at the end of the last week? This doesn't match the text of Daniel 9. Furthermore, what do all the other references to abominations and desecrations in the middle of the last week refer to if AD 27 is on view? It seems to me that this kind of approach is deliberately aiming to align the 70 weeks with Jesus, and in the end it still falls short, making the text erroneous at worst, inexact at best. Methodologically, it all seems rather backwards.

The decree to rebuild Jerusalem did not come from Artaxerxes in 445 BC. It came from Cyrus in 538 BC, and was ratified again by Darius I in c. 520 BC. Artaxerxes sanctioned the repair of Jerusalem's walls.

Furthermore, the text does NOT refer to the building of walls. It refers to the building of street and conduit, which seems to imply residential areas. The attempt to locate the beginning of the 70 weeks in Nehemiah's day must equate 'street and conduit' with city walls, but there is nothing in the text that requires this. In fact, the text just simply does not say that. Nehemiah did not build streets and conduits. He repaired city walls. Therefore what he does is quite simply not what the text is looking at here. To rebuild street and conduit is a way of saying 'settling' or 'resettling' an urban area.

 

In addition, what does it matter how long the wait for an anointed one is? Samuel's argument that 434 years (62 weeks) seems a long time to wait for an anointed one is a little disingenuous in light of the fact that Samuel's approach mandates waiting even longer for an anointed one.

Finally, no one has examined the syntax of the relevant verses here, but rather most seem to be carrying assumptions into their analysis. However, the following points need to be underlined:

1. The clauses delineating the timeframes of each period of weeks have not been discussed. The phrase "from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem" need not mark the beginning of the seven weeks, but rather could (and probably does) serve as the signal for Daniel to reassess the whole concept of exile along the lines laid out in the following clauses: "Know and understand from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem: Until an anointed appears there will be 7 weeks…". In other words, the decree to return is just a trigger for understanding, not the beginning of the calculations.
2. The text does not talk about THE Messiah (definite and with eschatological significance) but AN anointed one at the end of the 7 week period (9.25) and AN anointed one at the end of the 62 weeks period (9.26). If there is only one anointed one here, then you have to propose that the end of the 7 week period and the end of the 62 week period is within a lifetime. This automatically destroys any long-range understanding of the 62 weeks. The only way to get around this is to put the 7 weeks and 62 weeks together, such that an anointed one is seen only at the end of a 69 week period. However, this raises the issue about why a distinction is made between 7 weeks and 62 weeks? What purpose does this division serve? Why not 8 weeks and 61 weeks? The division (which some English versions follow) is meaningless within the text. The only sensible solution is to see the end of the 7 weeks and the end of the 62 weeks as distinct periods, at the end of which something significant happens. If there is only one anointed one on view, then these periods have to be overlapping. If the end of these two periods doesn't have to coincide, then we can start to entertain the possibility of two anointed ones being discussed here.
3. The verb תשׁוב in 9.25 is always taken as 3fs and adverbial ('it will again'), but it could be (and more likely is) a 2ms ('you will return') referring to Daniel. This sees the return to Jerusalem in the 6th (not the 5th) century BC as integral to the 70 weeks. After all, the revelation is made to Daniel who, in the narrative of the book, receives this revelation just after the fall of Babylon (see 9.1). Daniel thereby becomes indicative of the faithful Jew (as he is throughout the book) who would return to Jerusalem. And this is in keeping with the rest of ch. 9 in which Daniel prays on behalf of the Jews. What happens to Daniel is indicative of what happens to the Jews.

The two-anointed-ones solution seems more sensible, and a period of overlap between the 7 weeks and 62 weeks seems warranted (see my article for further explanation: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf). The result is that we can calculate precisely what Daniel was talking about. The first anointed one is the first leader of the post-exilic community (either Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, or Joshua) and comes as the end of the 7 week period. This makes the 7 week period (7 x 7 = 49) the 49 years between 587 and 538 BC (from the destruction of the temple to Cyrus' decree). The second anointed one is a reference to Onias III, the last legitimate Zadokite high priest. He was killed by the Seleucids in c. 171 BC, forever changing the nature and succession of the priesthood within Judaism. This makes the 62 weeks (62 x 7 = 434) run from 605 BC (the year that the book of Daniel begins the exile of Daniel and his three friends in Dan 1.1) to 171 BC. And then the last week is the 7 years from 171 to 164 BC, the second half of which (times, time, and half a time) was characterised by Antiochus IV's persecution of Jews. The 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are overlapping, but they fit the concerns of the book of Daniel. Everything adds up precisely.

All other so-called solutions can only come up with ball-park figures that do not match historical events with any precision, and even then they are reliant on things that the text of Daniel simply does not say. As a Christian, I understand the compulsion to make this chapter say something about Jesus, but it simply does not work as a prediction about Jesus. Rather, this passage is saying that exile needs to be redefined. Exile is not simply about absence from the land for 70 years. Rather, exile is about being under foreign rule. Years need to be reinterpreted as weeks of years. Even if you have returned to the land (note the importance of תשׁוב in 9.25) and have rebuilt Jerusalem (again, note 9.25), you can still be practically in exile if a foreigner rules over you, especially if that foreigner is killing anointed ones who lead your community. A particular Christian message can then be extrapolated from this and applied to Jesus by Christians, but the text itself is not a prediction of Jesus. If it is, the text seems rather erroneous. It could, however, be taken as a foreshadowing or precedent.

The text of Dan 9.25–27, therefore, reads as follows [with my comments in brackets]:

25 Know and understand from the issuing of the word to return and rebuild Jerusalem [in 538 BC]: Until an anointed leader there will be 7 weeks [the 49 years from the temple's destruction in 587 BC to 538 BC]. In 62 weeks [from the beginning of Daniel's exile in 605 BC to 171 BC] you will have returned with street and conduit rebuilt, but with the anguish of the times. 26 And after the 62 weeks [in 171 BC], an anointed one will be cut and have nothing [an allusion to the assassination of Onias III, as well as the fact that his legitimate priesthood was taken from him and his son did not succeed him]. The people of the coming prince [that is, the Seleucids] will ruin the city and the sanctuary. His/Its end will come like a flood, but until the end there will be war [note the Maccabean War]. Atrocities have been determined. 27 He/It will exacerbate covenant for many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will stop sacrifice and offering, and on the outskirts will be atrocious abominations [all this referring to Antiochus IV's repression of Torah and desecration of the temple in 167 BC], only until the completion and the determination gushes over the atrocious one.

What the text is doing is reinterpreting the idea of exile which is tied to the number 70 through Jeremiah's prophecy. But because the notion of exile is being redefined, so too the significance of 70 is redefined. This is an example of recontextualising an older prophetic message for a new situation — something that was occurring throughout the Second Temple Period, including in the New Testament.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia