DCHindley

maryhelena,

Artaxerxes III (Ochus). I am basing the regnal years on tables in Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C. - A. D. 75 (1956), by Richard A. Parker & Waldo H. Dubberstein.

It doesn't matter to me that no event corresponding to 358/7 is known to have touched on Jerusalems rebuilding. I recall reading a reconstruction made by religious evangelicals that just assumed there must have been a command to rebuild on one such inconspicous date because their pet theory required it

DCH

maryhelena

Quite - it's all a play on numbers anyway. And, to my mind, the gospel reference to Daniel is possibly a later addition to the JC storyboard - after the fact of 70 c.e. However that said, working backwards in order to get a 'fit' for the Bar Kocbar war/rebellion does not provide any relevance for an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9. Both the ending and the beginning need to be relevant.

We do have three OT events/stories with dating (as far as dating is available) and these three dates do provide relevance for any interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks of years. Without a relevant beginning point for an interpretation of Daniel, it becomes, for me anyway, purely an arbitrary application of Daniel's 70 weeks to suit some preconceived theory. Both the beginning and the ending need relevance.

1) The degree of Cyrus: About 538/7 b.c. (Ezra 6:3–5)

"In the first year of King Cyrus, Cyrus the king issued a decree: ‘Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the temple, the place where sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained, its height being 60 cubits and its width 60 cubits; with three layers of huge stones and one layer of timbers. And let the cost be paid from the royal treasury. ‘Also let the gold and silver utensils of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be returned and brought to their places in the temple in Jerusalem; and you shall put them in the house of God.

2) The degree or letter of Artaxerxes I (Ezra ch.7) About 458/7 b.c.

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king. 9 He had begun his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month,
This is a copy of the letter King Artaxerxes had given to Ezra the priest, a teacher of the Law, a man learned in matters concerning the commands and decrees of the LORD for Israel:

Artaxerxes, king of kings,

To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven:
Greetings.

Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. 14 You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. 15 Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16 together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. 17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.

3) The degree, or letters, of Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah ch.2) About 445 b.c.

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him,

... and I answered the king, “If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my ancestors are buried so that I can rebuild it.

.. I also said to him, “If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah?8 And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the royal park, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?” And because the gracious hand of my God was on me, the king granted my requests. 9 So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me.

.. Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” 18 I also told them about the gracious hand of my God on me and what the king had said to me.

-----------------------------

A straightforward interpreting of Daniel ch.9 can be placed prior to 70 c.e. This, in and off itself, has no bearing on when the 'little Apocalypse' handbill was added to the gospel JC storyboard. That is where the gospel JC story is set - prior to 70 c.e. - and that is where Daniel ch.9 can be relevant in both it's start and it's end point.

I can see no rhyme or reason to try and make Daniel ch.9 fit with the Bar Kockbar war/rebellion. If some ahistoricist/mythicsts are seeking to interpret Daniel ch.9 to a post 70 c.e. situation, they are on a loosing wicket. Dating manuscripts has nothing to do with this. The story is set prior to 70 c.e. and Daniel ch.9 fits well with that gospel story time-frame.

DCHindley

Here is a chart that explains it as predicting the crucifixion of Jesus:



Of course, they misspelled Stephan's name. [Ahh say, son, that's a joke son! - Foghorn Leghorn]

They are assuming Ezra's return occurred in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I which they date to 457 BC. According to Ezra 7:1-10 they left Babylon for Jerusalem in the 1st of the 1st month. According to Parker & Dubberstean, Artaxerxes 7th year spanned 4/8/458 to 3/27/457 BCE. If they left on April 8, 358, then the decree would had to have occurred early enough before that to allow Ezra to organize his expedition.

Julius Africanus, in his Chronology, suggests the 20th yr of Artaxerxes I (445/444), which is 475 years before the 16th year of Tiberius (29 CE) on the fact that 475 solar years = 490 lunar years without intercalations (=475*(365.25/354)).

Of course I have offered a solution, which I euphemistically refer to as the correct solution, in which the basic period is 62 year/weeks (434 years) spanning 597 BC (the date of the "word" from God as implied in Jeremiah 29) to 163 BC (the execution of Hellenizing High Priest Menelaus).

WITHIN the 62 week period, there is a 7 year/week (49 year sub-period) extending from 597-548 BCE, the latter date representing the time that Cyrus, as king of Persia, was subduing the Medes, Lydians and Northern Mesopotamia in preparation for his final stroke against Babylon in 539.

Also WITHIN the 62 week governing period, at the very end, is another 1 year/week period (7 yrs) spanning 170-163 BCE, which corresponds to the death of the exiled Zadokite HP Onias III and the death of Menelaus.

597	-49	548
-434
163	7	170

DCH

stephan huller

the earliest gospel tradition suggest a one year ministry. but the valentinians apparently had an 18 month post-resurrection ministry. was it 12 + 18 =30?

stephan huller

still daniel makes clear that the context is the destruction of the temple. clement and origen support a 70 CE dating

DCHindley

The why does Origen connect the 70 weeks to the coming of Christ, not the destruction of Jerusalem, in De Principiis, Book 4, chapter 1, section 5 (Greek, not Latin)?

And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler.

Perhaps you could be more specific where Clement and Origen relate Daniel 9 to the destruction of Jerusalem?

DCH

stephan huller

montgomery, international critical commentary on Daniel p. 397 "this interpretation became the dominant Jewish exegesis almost without exception; and it passed over into Christian exegesis, which along with the advent of Christ equally saw the downfall of the Holy City predicted in the prophesy of the 70 weeks."

stephan huller

ibid "that the destruction of Jerusalem was the objective of the 70 weeks is also the opinion of the Clementine Recognitions in an interpretation of the Abomination of Desolation (PG i, 1242)."

stephan huller

p. 398 "the specifically 'Christian' interpretation, which found the terminus of the Weeks in the advent of Jesus Christ, only slowly made its way; it is not found at all in the New Testament, it is not made use of at all in Justin Martyr's Apologies, and outside a passing allusion in Ep. Barnabas ... we have to come to the Fathers at the end of the 2nd century to obtain this exegesis."

maryhelena

Nice re your chart... Pretty straightforward apart from the ahistoricist position that there was no historical gospel JC - nor Stephen for that matter. What is interesting in this interpretation is the year 34 c.e. That is the year Josephus gives, the 20th year of Tiberius, for the death of Philip the Tetrarch. (Yes, I know, I do question that - but as it stands - Josephus has supplied a 'death' of a historical figure that suits this particular interpretation of Daniel...)

David, I think that the beginning date - and thus the ending date - for Jeremiah's 70 years is open to question. The exile in Babylon, either from the early date of 597 b.c. or from 586 b.c., does not fit with these 70 years. Thus, other interpretations/applications have to be considered.

As to using an element of Daniel 9 with the 597 b.c. year - don't care for it. I can't see that Daniel's weeks of years, however one plays the numbers game, can be applied prior to the Degree of Cyrus, i.e. the return to Jerusalem - not the going into exile which is Jeremiah's 70 year prophecy/prediction. That prophecy, in itself, is problematic re the start and ending dating. Methinks, to tie in Daniel with Jeremiah is to add confusion rather than clarification.

Yes, as I said earlier, I do think that Daniel has updated the whole 70 year idea. Updated it by breaking up the years into sections - thus allowing gaps between specific number of years. That allows for both specific applications (like one executed anointed/messiah figure) and applications of purely the number system to various historical events deemed to be relevant.

And Josephus? I think that writer goes a step further than Daniel. Once the 70 weeks of years can be divided up, a method that allows for gaps between the various applications - then we are not anymore talking about 490 years - it's now an open-ended 70 weeks of years prophetic formula or template.

I think the Josephan writer was aware of the relevance of 490 years from 445 b.c. (20th year of Artaxerxes I) which is around 45 c.e. Agrippa I, the last King of Judea died in 44 c.e. But the years roll on and 70 c.e. was a big deal. Was that year to be part of a Daniel ch.9 interpretation. Well, methinks, our prophetic historian had a bash at it...

Ant:Book 10.ch.11.7


Josephus War: Book 6, ch.4. par 8

Josephus is obviously way out with his number of years re dating . Historically he is in error with his dating - but as a prophetic historian? No, great stuff here......

The Josephan writer is attempting to bring Daniel 9 in line with 70 c.e. He can’t do that with a straightforward interpretation i.e. using the bigger number of years, the 490 years, from any of the three relevant return dates of Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem. But Daniel has broken up those years. If that is the case, then these 70 weeks of years are not restricted to 490 years, i.e. the gap years can bring the overall number of years to whatever suits ones historical reconstructions/reinterpretations. In other words - this whole 70 year idea is very mobile and flexible and adjustable. It’s just a prophetic formula or template into which one puts ones interpretation of history. Making adjustments to both as suits the occasion.

The Josephan writer is not interested in accurate historical dating, or number of years here. The Josephan writer, as a prophetic historian, is dealing with Daniel 9 and it’s adjustable 490 years. 1130 minus 639 = 491 years. Josephus has got to 70 c.e. with Daniel 9 by allowing for gaps between the years of the 70 weeks of years formula. Thus, 70 c.e. is in the middle of a 7 year week. A week that starts in 66 c.e. with Jerusalem surrounded by armies of Cestus Gallus and ends with Masada. (whether Masada was in 73 c.e. or prior to 70 is neither here nor there for a prophetic historian using history to fit his prophetic template.

(if one wants to get to the Bar Kockbar war/rebellion - simple on this formula - 132 c.e. to 135 c.e. is half of 7 years, ie. Half a week in which not a stone upon a stone is left in Jerusalem...)

Bottom line in all of this is that Daniel ch.9 and it’s 70 weeks of years is very open-ended. Methinks, it’s up to the interpreters to show historical relevance. Not, of course, that prophecy should be seen as some sort of magic wand to predict future events. That’s not how I view it. It’s a template, a formula, into which those who have interpreted Jewish history have placed their ‘story’.

Yes, it’s probably all arbitrary - but it gives the story an other-worldly gloss...That said, for those of us in the search for early Christian origins, it’s perhaps necessary to get a handle on the road map - the game plan that preceded us.

--------------
I wonder if all this re Daniel 9 is taking the OP away from it's intention - perhaps all this Daniel talk needs to be split off...