Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear list,

Sometimes it is good to check universally accepted viewpoints that never are 
being checked. The present Persian chronology is based on a list, believed to 
have been written by the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. It was fixed and 
accepted before any cuneiform tablet from Persia was unearthed.

In the last decades, thousands of dated cuneiform tables have been published 
in books and on-line (e.g. the British Museum and the Vorderasiatische 
Museum). Some of these tablets completely destroy the chronology of Ptolemy.
This month my book on Persian chronology and the length of the Babylonian 
exile was published. Interesting evidence is presented here: Dated ccuneiform 
tablets and astronomical tablets show that Cambyses reigned into his year 9 
(one year  longer than the traditional chronology allows for);  there are 5 
years between Cambyses and Darius I, and not only a few months); there was a 
coregency between Darius I and Xerxes of 16 years; and Artaxerxes I reigned 
for 51 and not only for 41 years.

This chronology shows that the year 455, and not 445 BCE, was the year when 
the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued by Artaxerxes I. This has a 
bearing on the end of the 70 sevens.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway



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:
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.
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.
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