Hi Rolf,
According to your research, when is the first month of the 7th year
of King Artaxerxes I? (Ez 7:7, 8)
Thank you,
Samuel Nunez
On Oct 18, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Rolf 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
