Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21­27

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • To: "<null AT lists.ibiblio.org>" <null AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21­27
  • Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:35:46 +0000

No, it doesn't have a bearing, Rolf. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was
issued by Cyrus in 538.

GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)


On 18/10/2012, at 7:23 PM, "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page