Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Karl,

Briefly…

The date of Jesus' death is calculated on a few things: the governship of Pilate (AD 26–36) and the marriage of Antipas to Herodias in AD 31. This puts Jesus' death in either AD 33 or AD 34. Also, given the likely connection between Pilate and Sejanus (regent), the intrigue and toing and froing regarding Jesus' death is likely to mean that it occurred closer to AD 31 when Sejanus fell from grace and was executed for treason. As such AD 33 is most likely.

The interpretation of Dan 9 that connects the decree to return and rebuild Jerusalem with Artaxerxes I in 445 BC suffers from two things. First, by my calculation, 483 (69 x 7) years after 445 BC is AD 39. So actually, we're significantly out in terms of the dates about Jesus already. Secondly, this is connecting the rebuilding with Nehemiah, but the way you're reading the text here means that the rebuilding occurs 49 years later, in 396 BC. If you're not doing this, then you're not considering the text itself and have to read it another way. Whichever way you go, if you put the 7 weeks on the front of the 62 weeks for a total of 69 consecutive weeks, there's a problem with Nehemiah, who built the walls of Jerusalem in 52 days in 444 BC. This hypothesis just has "problem" writ large across it. I'm happy to be persuaded by it, but it really has nothing going for it that I can see.

The decree to return to Jerusalem and rebuild was issued by Cyrus. Karl, are you claiming that the decree to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple did not involve any dwellings in Jerusalem? Haggai certainly has a decent go at the folk in Jerusalem for being busy building their own house while neglecting the temple. So your claim that Cyrus' decree doesn't count here is really stretching it.

No, I don't believe I contradicted myself when I said we can make precise calculations. We are spoilt for choice when identifying an anointed one in 538 BC. Take your pick: Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Joshua… I don't mind which. Either one you choose still gives you precision. Besides, the text doesn't say THE anointed one. It uses an indefinite noun at that point. So it could mean one of these guys, or perhaps even all three. But the precision of the year remains. Cyrus' decree came in 538 BC.

You keep referring to THE anointed one. Show me in the text where it talks about THE anointed one. I can show you two references to AN anointed one (משׁיח): see 9.25 and 9.26. But the text does not talk about THE anointed one. Are you claiming that my interpretation, which sees these indefinite nouns as, well, indefinite nouns is precluded by the text itself? Can you at least see how I'm deriving my interpretation from the text itself?

When Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, he rebuilds the walls in 444 BC. Sure, it's possible that more construction went on, but can you show me the evidence for this? Where in the text are you getting this from? It strikes me that in order for your hypothesis to stand, you have to point to things that are simply not in the text. In other words, you have to make up evidence. I'm trying to steer well clear of this and just stick what the text is saying.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 20 October 2012 9:54 AM
To: George Athas <george.athas AT moore.edu.au>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21­27

George:

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

…

Unfortunately, this still gets us nowhere. Who messianically significant died in AD 27? No one. The death of Jesus occurred in AD 33.

What makes you say that? What evidence do you have for your date?

If you are referring to Luke 3:1, can you prove that the 15th year of Tiberius didn’t include his ten year co-regency? If you include that co-regency, then his 15th year would have been 20 AD by present reckoning.

My understanding is that one of the reasons modern historians have difficulties in unraveling dates from ancient sources is that many times co-regencies are counted twice; once by the outgoing monarch, and a second time by the incoming one.

 

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.

Cyrus’ decree, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22–3 and again in Ezra 1:1–4, mentions only the rebuilding of the temple, nothing about rebuilding the city. Daniel 9:25 specifically refers to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:3 mentions that the city was still desolate before he went to rebuild it.

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.

After Nehemiah rebuild the walls, he then repopulated the city, which repopulation required the rebuilding of streets and neighborhoods, i.e. the whole city.

 

…

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.

Daniel 9:25 very clearly denotes the beginning of calculations, at least to the “anointed leader”. Within the context, that would also be for the reckoning of the 62 sevens of years and the whole 70 sevens.

 

1. 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.

Did Daniel ever return to Jerusalem? Daniel 10 has him still at the Persian court, two years after Cyrus ordered the rebuilding of the Temple.

That the verb תשׁוב is taken as a third per. fem. sing. is because of context, that such an understanding fits the context better, especially with the following verb “be built”.

 

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.

Did you just contradict yourself? You give three people as possible candidates for a precise calculation. That doesn’t sound very precise to me.

The exile lasted 70 years.

 

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.

Except that interpretation is linguistically indefensible.

Daniel 9:25 specifically refers to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, an event that had not yet happened as late as Nehemiah 2. 

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.

Remember, most of ancient history is ball-park figures, if even partially accurate.

 

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.

That doesn’t make sense, when one consults history: for much of its history, Judea was a vassal nation, largely under Egyptian lordship from the time of Thutmosis III Sesiq after Solomon’s death, through the Amarna period and later. No, exile referred to physical removal from the land.

…

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

Karl W. Randolph.