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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.