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" <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
