To reply to the original post as to the fullfillment of the prophecy, I would just like to say, from an agnostic point of view, So what? Many people in the history of the world have told lies that create a desired reality. That doesn't make them true. No one today was present when 1. Jesus was (allegedly) alive and 2. the mythology of the Greek people was written to complete the Christian Bible. There is, in my opinion, no good reason to believe that the events told in the new (or old) testament are true. They are just stories as far as I'm concerned. Some good, some horrible, but stories none the less.

Here is one explanation that makes good sense to me:

"The third vision (dated in the first year of Darius): the meaning of the seventy years of Jerusalem's desolation predicted in Jer. 25:11; 29:10...After meditating on this prophecy of Jeremiah (9:1f), Daniel prayed to Jehovah, confessing the national sinfulness (9:3-15) and imploring God to bring to an end the desolation of his Temple (9:16-19). Gabriel then explained that Jeremiah's seventy years are really seventy weeks of years (or 490) after which the iniquity of the Jews would be atoned for (9:20-24). This period is divided as follows: seven weeks (49 years) from Zedekiah in 586 to the high priest Joshua in 538 (9:25a); sixty-two weeks (434 years) from Joshua to the slaying of the high priest Onias III in 171 (9:25b); one week from the death of Onias to the inauguration of the Kingdom of God (171-164). During the first half of this last week (171-168), Antiochus Epiphanes showed favor to renegade Jews, during the second half he not only proscribed the Jewish religion but placed in the Temple an altar dedicated to the Olympian Zeus, called in Hebrew ba'al shamayim [Lord of Heaven]. This expression was satirically distorted to shiqqus shomem[cf. 11:31; 12:11] or 'the Abomination of Desolation' (9:26f; cf. I Macc. 1)." Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, P. 751.

If this explanation is correct, that would mean that Onias III is the "anointed one [who] shall be cut off, and have nothing." The "prince who is to come" is Antiochus. I think this explanation is the one most scholars consider to be correct.

I hope this answers your question, at least to some degree.

rodahi

Thanks, Rodahi. Would you consider leaving your library to me in your will?

Michael

Sure! I am surely old enough to be your father, so the chances are good that you would get a great deal of use out of the numerous books that I have accumulated over the years. I expect to be dust in the wind by the time you get to be my age.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment.

Ron

What about many other prophecies that Jesus does not fulfill. About there being peace in the world. The only things Christians can come up with is the bending of the wording to fit your own point of view. While anything exact and specific Jesus fails to meet.

can I have a reference to this prophecy?

turtonm, a minor point, this is such a hash I can't make head or tail out of it, but it seems like the prophecy is saying the "anointed one" who is "a prince" comes after 7 weeks, whereas the other "anointed one" who is "cut off" comes yet 62 weeks beyond that. So the first princely "anointed one" would be different from the one who is supposed to be Christ. This is also assuming the word "and" in the quote "And after the sixty-two weeks, and anointed one shall be cut-off" is actually supposed to be "an" and there was a typo somewhere along the way. Sounds like Daniel is referring to two different anointed ones who live centuries apart... either that, or I'm just thoroughly confused. (Happens a lot when I read OT prophecy...)

I will save Michael the trouble of having to respond to this posting. The quote you give, gcameron, was made by me, not Michael.

The questions are answered in a posting I made earlier this morning. See my Robert H. Pfeiffer quote. He explains what the "seventy weeks" originally meant and which actual historical characters the writer of Daniel alluded to.

rodahi

Thanks W@L and rodahi. Progress at last.

Thus, based on the Zaspel article to which W@L referred me, I had derived more or less the thesis rodahi mentions. Only Zaspel identifies the reference points for the Seven Sevens as Jeremiah (587) (see Jer. 31:38) and Cyrus (538) (see Isa. 45:1). Like a good apologist, Zaspel then goes on to harmonize Daniel with the New Testament, but unburdened by that baggage, I disregard the rest of his strained exegesis.

Except, Zaspel notes (as does Pfeiffer) that the Abomination of Desolation occurs not only in 9:27 but 11:31 and 12:11. This last reference is especially interesting because it states (NRSV), "From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days." Notably, this is a period long enough to have required an intercalary month. Subtract that then divide by 360 [(1290-30)/360] and you get exactly 3.5. Which ties very nicely, too nicely to be coincidence, with 9:27 (half of the seventieth week).

Frankly, I would have posted this last night when I had my "ah ha" moment, but there's one problem. The math doesn't jibe. From 587 to 538 is Seven Sevens (49 years), but from 538 to 171 (when Onias III was killed) is rather less than Sixty-Two Sevens (434 years). It's more like 367 years.

Now, there are two possibilities. One is that the apparent handshake between 9:27 and 12:11 is in fact coincidence. This would place the 69th week of Daniel's prophecy in something like 104 BCE. Odd, since the whole purpose of Daniel is to rouse Israel to resist Antiochus. But not impossible.

The other possibility is that Daniel (whether one person or several) simply got the history wrong. That is, he got the Seven Sevens right, but was hazy on how long it had been from Cyrus to his own time. Bear in mind that Daniel isn't a cracker-jack historian, e.g., identifying Darius rather than Cyrus as the conqueror of the Babylonians. Moreover, we're talking about a time frame roughly equivalent to that from our own to the landing at Plymouth rock. What's a few decades here or there among friends? And there's the explanation, as Pfeiffer points out, that seventy weeks probably was chosen for no better reason than to track Jeremiah's prophesy (mentioned Dan. 1:2).

On balance, I think the latter scenario is more plausible. And am enheartened to learn that Pfeiffer and other scholars apparently reach the same conclusion.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited June 10, 2001).]

komazour: What about many other prophecies that Jesus does not fulfill. About there being peace in the world. The only things Christians can come up with is the bending of the wording to fit your own point of view. While anything exact and specific Jesus fails to meet.

tall: can I have a reference to this prophecy?

Here is an example of a prophecy that went unfulfilled:

"the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the blessed?'
And Jesus said, 'I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" Mk. 14:61-62.

We KNOW from history that the questioning high priest DID NOT "see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Jesus was wrong in his prediction.

The writer of "Mark" was probably influenced by the Jewish pseudepigraphic work known as I Enoch. (In the book, Enoch is told the secrets and mysteries of the future, i.e., He is told what was to happen at the End of time.)

Compare the the following selected passages (69.27; 62.5; 25.3-4) with what "Mark" has Jesus say to the high priest:

"the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man....[and] they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory....the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness...He shall take vengence on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever."

rodahi