stephan huller

Don't worry about it. Some people came along and tried to shake me down. But I told them the Price wasn't right.

stephan huller

Let's get back and look at the book of Daniel. The modern Jewish tradition says that Daniel is an inferior text. But all signs would point to the fact that at the time the gospel was written it was of superior value. The important section in chapter 9 'anticipated' the coming end of the temple (and perhaps to the minds of contemporaries - the coming end of the world). Daniel was also understood to be a eunuch who possessed superior prophetic ability.

stephan huller

Mark (or the original evangelist whoever that was) incorporates Daniel's prophetic vision from chapter 9 into his narrative. Clearly the identification of the prophesy as having been fulfilled was no longer accepted. The temple was destroyed in 70 CE and it was acknowledged to have 'fit' or anticipated the historical razing of that building - not just by Jews but also by Christians. How does it make sense to assume a continuing 'sorting out' and applying the destruction to the Bar Kochba revolt when it really doesn't naturally fit? Instead it seems to come from a common cultural touch stone in the decade or generation after 70 CE.

maryhelena

David

Artaxerxes III

I don't see any relevance for Jerusalem re Artaxerxes III...

On the other hand - 457/8 b.c. is around the 7th year of Artaxerxes I - a time period of relevance to the Jerusalem temple, i.e. gold and silver are sent from Babylon via Ezra.

If one wants to use the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (around 457 b.c.) with Daniel's 490 years, then one gets to around 33 c.e. Around the time of the gospel JC story. That would be, from an ahistoricist/mythicist perspective, a mythological or symbolic application of those 490 years. i.e. not a literal application with a literal execution. Daniel, surely, is not anticipating a string of executed anointed/messiah type figures.....

The last possible starting date for Daniel's 490 years would be the 20th year of Artaxerxes I, around 445 b.c. A time period, at least OT wise, when Nehemiah is sent to repair the walls of Jerusalem. That takes one to around 45 c.e. Around the time of the death of the last King of the Jews, Agrippa I. A King, according to Josephus, who repaired those walls of Jerusalem.

So:

1) A literal application re a physical execution of the Last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c.

2) A mythological or symbolic application re the gospel JC story, around 33 c.e. Which is 70 years from the execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.

3) A numbers only application of those 490 years to the last King of the Jews, Agrippa I who died around 44 b.c. - and repaired the walls of Jerusalem.

I don't see any way in which the 490 years can be used to get to the Bar Kockbar war/rebellion. Yes, as I said in an earlier post, Daniel's version of the 70 weeks of years is open ended. But that does not mean that it's the full house of years, the 490, that has to be used each and every application. It's the OT prophetic 70 year formula, updated by Daniel, that can be used piecemeal, if you will. 70 years, 7 years, 7 x 7 years etc...gLuke, for example, using a 70 year time frame. (from Lysanias of Abilene to 15th year of Tiberius.) Yep, it's all a play on numbers. If the historical data is wanting - bobs your uncle - adjust it to fit the prophetic template.

stephan huller

DCH. You were right about that initial date I think. There aren't four Persian kings. There are three. You are a hundred percent right about that. You've opened my eyes. I was blind but now I see.

Here is the first king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I_of_Persia
Here is his successor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_II_of_Persia
Here is his successor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdianus
Here is his successor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_II_of_Persia
He had two successors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_II_of_Persia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyrtaeus
He was succeeded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_III_of_Persia
He was succeeded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arses_of_Persia
He was succeeded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_III_of_Persia
He was succeeded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessus
and finally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

So there are in reality three kings named Artaxerxes not four. Again I had never realized that. Quite a revelation.

stephan huller

So let's look again at what DCH is suggesting.

This is very, very significant. I never thought of that before. Bravo.

stephan huller

The difficulty however is that Daniel 9:24 - 27 is about the destruction not the building of the temple.

stephan huller

Here is at least one prominent scholar who agrees with your assumptions:

stephan huller

Of course that author follows the typical mistake of chronographers and dates the seventy weeks to the birth of Jesus. I don't even see how this is possible. As we say in Portuguese - "É muita areia para a minha camioneta!"

stephan huller

"É muita areia para a minha camioneta!" literally: too much sand for my truck but the equivalent to the American English 'it's above my pay grade' or 'it's over my head.'