Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Samuel,

I've done some further thinking on your following claim:

"One reason why I see the 69 week period divided in seven weeks and 62 weeks is to indicate that even though the Messiah would not come until the 69th week, the reconstruction of the city streets and ditches would take place in a shorter amount of time, namely 7 weeks or 49 years."

I can't see how this is working. Are you connecting the rebuilding to Artaxerxes' sanctioning of Nehemiah's mission? If so, the decree comes in 445 BC, but Nehemiah completes the repairs of the walls of Jerusalem in 52 days in 444 BC. What do you see is happening until 396 BC? And what evidence do you have for it?

Also, if we take the start of a 69-week period (483 years) to be 445 BC, then 483 years after that gets us to AD 39. This is well after the death of Jesus. I just don't see how it adds up. If there is a need to resort to co-regencies and accession years, etc., then I find this hugely problematic, because it's inserting elements into the text that are simply not there. It's actually changing the numbers—contorting the text. How do you get around this? I'm very willing to be persuaded, but I just don't see how this hypothesis has any traction.

You might want to check out my brief comments at my blog:

http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/the-seventy-weeks-of-daniel-9/

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

From: Samuel Nunez <samuelnunez1973 AT sbcglobal.net>
Date: Saturday, 20 October 2012 4:54 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,

One reason why I see the 69 week period divided in seven weeks and 62 weeks is to indicate that even though the Messiah would not come until the 69th week, the reconstruction of the city streets and ditches would take place in a shorter amount of time, namely 7 weeks or 49 years.

The 62 week period is significant because at the end of this time period, that follows the seven week period of reconstruction, the anointed one appears.

The last week or 70th week is then also connected to the 62 weeks (v.26); it is significant because the text indicates that after the 62 weeks or in the last one week time period the anointed one is karat.

Therefore looking at the text I do not see anything, which would indicate the possibility for gaps or overlaps in the 70 weeks (v.24).

Greetings,

Samuel Nunez

On Oct 19, 2012, at 2:43 AM, George Athas wrote:

We will agree to disagree, Samuel. I know your view is shared by many, but I just don't see how it works contextually within Daniel, or historically. It quite literally doesn't add up in my view.

Just to continue the conversation, though, could you let me know why you think the 69-week period is divided into a 7-week and 62-weeks period?

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