Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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