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
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
