George,
I share a few remarks regarding my understanding of this passage.
1. The main reason for Gabriel's intervention was to help Daniel know
the matter and understand the vision (9:23), which he did not
understand (see 8:26, 27; also v. 13, 14).
2. The structure of Dan 9:25-27 seems to indicate or describe one
city, as well as one Messiah.
A. Jerusalem v.25
B. Messiah v. 25
C. Jerusalem v. 25
D. Messiah v. 26
C' Jerusalem v. 26
B' Messiah v. 27
A' Jerusalem v. 27
3. The Qal imperfect of shub and the Nifal perfect of banah should be
understood as 3rd fem sg. not only on the basis of the restoration
and rebuilding of the street (f), ditch (f) of the city, but also on
the basis of the previous parallel use of these two roots in the
Hiphil and Qal infinitive forms in reference to Jerusalem (9:25). It
seems that the city and not Daniel is in view here.
Cheers!
Samuel Nunez
On Oct 17, 2012, at 9:18 PM, George Athas wrote:
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
