stephan huller

I had a question from bacht in another thread about how it was that the rabbinic sources could have believed that Agrippa was the messiah (9.26) when it is generally assumed that Daniel wrote in the Babylonian period and there is no way to stretch four hundred and ninety years from that epoch to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I mentioned there is an explanation current among the Jews - there always is - but because it seems so stupid to begin with I never bothered to even listen to what it had to say.

Anyway my wife was watching the House Sitter with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn (who was very attractive even in the 90s thanks to plastic surgery) so I went away and for no reason in particular started thumbing through the International Critical Commentary on Daniel (or via: amazon.co.uk) for no reason whatsoever (I wasn't even thinking about bacht's question I just didn't buy the central premise of the movie that Goldie could meet Steve Martin's parents in a small town and claim to be married to him without prompting them to call Martin).

Montgomery's commentary is the finest out there, I think. It is amazing how every page of a book like this is packed with so much useful information.

So I start reading from page 1 (instead of my usual picking random pages of information in a book like this, like 'spin the globe' as used to play when I was a kid). Montgomery begins by noting that the name Daniel was widespread in Semitic antiquity. He takes Ezekiel's (14:14,20) Daniel - who is ranked with Noah and Job - as another entirely legendary Daniel.

Montgomery says that the name Daniel was taken from 'living Jewish folk-story.' (p. 3)

He then writes that "there is no reference to our Daniel as an historical person in the Heb. OT although his life is attributed by the book to the 6th century." (ibid)

Montgomery goes through all the allusions to Daniel in ancient literature. He notes strong parallels with 1 Maccabees and the Zaddokite text of Qumran. He notes the differing division of chapters (at least traditionally) between the Jewish and Christian texts of Daniel.

He then goes through the linguistic evidence to help set a date. At the end of his discussion of the use of Hebrew by the author he writes that "to sum up, the argument from the Hebrew points to a late age in comparison with the known Biblical literature, and it can be assigned with entire philological satisfaction to the 2nd century,; while a date earlier than the 4th century cent. cannot on comparative evidence be easily attributed to it." (p. 15).

The section on the author's use of Aramaic presents evidence which he says "forces the present writer to hold that the Aramaic of Daniel is not earlier than within the 5th century, is more likely younger, and is certainly not 6th century." (p. 20).

He also points to three words of Greek origin which help fix the date even further.

Anyway, all of this got me thinking about bacht's question. So I did the unthinkable. I just counted back four hundred and ninety years from 70 CE just to see where that would lead us in terms of a historical period.

420 BCE approximately. The Persian period.

I wasn't paying attention to any internal evidence right now. I just wanted to see if it was at all possible that someone in the first century might have thought that Daniel was writing in 420 BCE.

I know people are going to say that the work claims to be written in the Babylonian period. But the work is also obviously a composite text.

The first account is in Hebrew; then Aramaic is used from ch. 2:4, beginning with the speech of the "Chaldeans", through chapter seven. Hebrew is then used from chapter eight through chapter twelve.

Anyway, when I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the list of Persian kings I who ruled in 420 BCE I found a figure called Darius II:

So I still had this problem about the fact that Daniel is originally dated in previous chapters to the Babylonian period. But I thought it was interesting to that four hundred and ninety years before the destruction of the temple there was this king name 'Darius' ruling the Jews. I could help but remember that a 'Darius' in Daniel.

Then when I looked up the Wikipedia entry for Daniel I noticed that scholars found a problem reconciling Daniel's mention of 'Darius' with Daniel being identified as living in the Babylonian period.

First the introduction to Daniel being in the court of Darius. After the Feast of Belshazzar we are told "that very night" (Dan 5:30) Belshazzar was slain and "Darius the Mede" took over the kingdom.

It is worth noting that the vision of the seventy weeks is specifically given in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1).

Now here's the problem associating Darius with a figure who lived in the Babylonian period:

But Darius II while being an illegitimate son of king Artaxerxes I and it is interesting to note that he actually followed Artaxerxes's other son Xerxes as Wikipedia notes:

Now Wikipedia lists all kinds of creative ways to make 'Darius' live in the Babylonian period. Yet what I am wondering is whether with all the change of language and the text being a hodge-podge of different writings, whether someone fused together two traditions about two separate 'prophets' named Daniel?

In other words, the point at which 'Darius' is introduced into the narrative represents a separate work which ends in chapter 12. The idea that Belshazzar was living one day, murdered one night and then Darius the king of the Medes came along in the BABYLONIAN PERIOD obviously doesn't work.

Couldn't it be possible instead that the prophesy given in Daniel chapter 9 was written at the beginning of the reign of Darius II and that Jews and Christians who argued that the 'cutting off' of the messiah and the ending of the tamid occurred around 66 CE KNEW that the original material was dated from the Persian period?

Just a thought ...

DCHindley

While I agree that the name Daniel was probably chosen because it represented the ancient hero of old, not an actual person, the Seventy Weeks passage in Chapter 9 is a self contained cryptogram. The text actually says specifically when the period began: "from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25b). This is generally acknowledged to be an allusion to Jeremiah 29:10, which is set in circumstances that would date to about 597 BCE.

Now I have my own oh so wrong but credible way to interpret this cryptogram* as covering events between 597 and 164 BCE, but just because the story - as written - may refer to events leading into the 2nd century BCE doesn't mean that later commentators (Christian and Jewish, ancient and modern) couldn't wrest other interpretations out of it for their own ideological reasons. And who is to say that defined events HAVE to be sequential, and not have intervening periods between them that have nothing to do with the "meaning" of the defined events?

For those curious about the dates IMPLIED by the stories in Daniel, here is a table that I devised, which folks can nit-pick about to their hearts content:

Verse numbers: Per the MT and LXX. English numbering is in parentheses if different.

ORDER OF STORIES AS THEY EXIST IN PRESENT TEXT:

Jehoikim (Fall 609/8 - 598/7 BCE):

1:1-21 Hebrew
Setting: Unspecified. Probably June/July 604 BCE.
Subject: The submission of Jehoikim to Nebuchadnezzar. Story of the 4 boys.

Nebuchadnezzar (Spring 604/3 - 562/1 BCE):

2:1-4a Hebrew
Setting: Yr 2 (603/2 BCE).
Subject: Introduction to 2:4b-49.

2:4b-49 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified (but see 2:1-4a).
Subject: Daniel interprets king’s “statue dream.”

3:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified in MT; 18th Yr (587/6 BCE) in LXX.
Subject: Drama of Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego.

Nabonidus (Spring 555/4 - 539/8 BCE. Text has Nebuchadnezzar):

3:31-4:34 (4:1-37) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 5 (551/0 BCE) & Yr 14 (542/1 BCE).
Subject: The King’s dream; Belteshazzar’s interpretation; The King’s praise of “Most High” the King of heaven.”

5:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Possibly final year (539/8 BCE)
Subject: Daniel interprets writing on the wall for Belshazzar (Nabonidus’ regent).

Gobyras (text has Darius the Mede), Persian Satrap of Babylon under Cyrus:

5:31-6:28 (6:1-29) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably the 1st yr as Satrap = 1st yr of Cyrus (538/7 BCE).
Subject: Daniel in Lion’s Den.
Belshazzar, regent of Nabonidus:

7:1-28 Aramaic
Setting: Yr 1 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 7 of Nabonidus, 549/8 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Four Beasts.

Belshazzar, regent of Nabonidus (regent between spring of 549/8 & 539/8 BCE):

8:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 9 of Nabonidus, 547/6 BCE).
Subject: Daniel’s vision of Ram & He-goat.

Gobyras (text has Darius the Mede), Persian Satrap of Babylon under Cyrus:

9:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Gabriel explains the 70 Weeks of Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11.

Cyrus (Spring 538/7 - 522/1 BCE):

10:1-12:13 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 (536/5 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Hellenistic Wars

ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGICAL LAYOUT:

BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Jehoikim, King of Israel (Fall 609/8 - 598/7 BCE):

1:1-21 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 (Fall 607/6 BCE)
Subject: Siege of Jerusalem by “King” Nebuchadnezzar, (actually, a general of Nabopolassar)

1:2-21 Hebrew
Setting: Unspecified. Probably June/July 604 BCE.
Subject: Submission of Jehoikim to Nebuchadnezzar and taking of hostages. Story of the 4 boys.

Nebuchadnezzar (Spring 604/3 - 562/1 BCE):

2:1-4a Hebrew
Setting: Yr 2 (603/2 BCE).
Subject: Introduction to 2:4b-49.

2:4b-49 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified (but see 2:1-4a).
Subject: Daniel interprets king’s “statue dream.”

3:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified in MT; 18th Yr (587/6 BCE) in LXX.
Subject: Drama of Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego.

Nabonidus (Spring 555/4 - 539/8 BCE. Text has Nebuchadnezzar):

(4:4-27) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 5 (551/550 BCE).
Subject: The King’s dream & “Belteshazzar’s” interpretation;

7:1-28 Aramaic
Setting: Yr 1 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 7 of Nabonidus, 549/8 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Four Beasts.

8:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 9 of Nabonidus, 547/6 BCE).
Subject: Daniel’s vision of Ram & He-goat.

3:31-33 (4:1-3) & 4-1-34 (4:28-37)
Setting: Unspecified. Probably Yr 14 of Nabonidus (542/1 BCE).
Subject: The King’s praise of “Most High” the King of heaven.” Compare to 4Q242 “Prayer of Nabonidus.”

5:1-30 Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Probably final year of Belshazzar, regent (Yr 17 of Nabonidus, 539/8 BCE)
Subject: Daniel interprets writing on the wall for Belshazzar (Nabonidus’ regent).

PERSIAN PERIOD

Cyrus, King (Spring 538/7 - 522/1 BCE):

5:31-6:28 (6:1-29) Aramaic
Setting: Unspecified. Possibly Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (= Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Daniel in Lion’s Den.

9:1-27 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 1 of Gobyras, Persian Satrap of Babylon (Yr 1 of Cyrus as King of Babylon, 538/7 BCE).
Subject: Gabriel explains the 70 Weeks of Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11.

10:1-12:13 Hebrew
Setting: Yr 3 of Cyrus (536/5 BCE).
Subject: Vision of the Hellenistic Wars

DSS fragments and their relation to the MT (no part seems to correspond to passages particular to the LXX version of Daniel):

1Q Dan a Dan 1:10-17; 2:2-6.
1Q Dan b Dan 3:22-30.
6Q Dan Dan 8:16-18, 20-21; 10:8-16; 11:33-36, 38.

Dan 3:31-4:24 (4:1-4:27): Nothing is known of Nebuchadnezzar being waylaid for 7 years in any manner. However, this -was- the case with Nabonidus for a period of 10 years. In the DSS, there is a fragment usually titled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” (4Q242) that may have served as the base for the story told in Daniel...

"The words of the prayer of Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. “I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God.’ And I wrote this]: ‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years [I] prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because [I believed] that they were gods...' "

Now I note that there was a return of exiles under Shehbazzar in yr 1 of Cyrus as king of Babylon, which only succeeded in setting a foundation for a new temple. Could Daniel in the Lion's Den be a metaphore for Sheshbazzar?

The next major attempt to resettle and resume temple building was under prince Zerubbabel and high priest Joshua in 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BCE), which managed to complete erection of a temple building in the 6th year of Darius I (Mar 12, 515 BCE).

DCH

*For those who give a rat's ass, here it is:

Evangelicals like to think that "anointed one" in Daniel 9 refer to Christ Jesus. Conversely, many modern critics interpret the "anointed one" of Dan. 9:25 as the high priest Onias III. Yet why assume references to an "anointed one" must always refer to Christ. Cyrus, for example, is an anointed one in Isaiah 45:1. Even if the word "anointed (one)" *does* refer to a high priest, as it may in Dan. 9:26, why only to a "good" one?

Most people see the periods 7 (7x7=49), 62 (7x62=434), 1 (1x7=7) as sequential to equal 70 (7x70=490). By leaving open the question of whether an anointed one was a king/ruler or high priest, the seventy weeks of Dan 9 can be understood as a sophisticated cryptogram:

597-------------------<434 yrs>------------------164
597 - <49 yrs> - 548 - <378 yrs> - 171 - <7 yrs> - 164

The governing period of the cryptogram is actually 62 weeks of years, starting with the year in which Jeremiah 29:10 *appears* to have been uttered (circa 597/6 BCE, based on Jer. 29:2), and thus ending 163/2 BCE. A "seventy" year-week cryptogram was formed by taking the 62 year-week base period, plus the initial seven year-weeks plus the final year-week that are actually contained within it, and arbitrarily adding them together. Besides, for a 70 week (490 year) governing period to end circa 164 BCE would mean it started 653 BCE!

It is not absolutely necessary for the beginning date of the initial 49 yr sub period to match the initial year of the start of the 434 year period, or the end date of the final 7 yr sub-period to match the end of the 434 year period, but I believe they were meant to roughly coincide with them. Considering that we are dealing with a cryptic "prophesy" I would not expect the events being relayed to be absolutely sequential, or to exactly meet the quantities described (half a year-week vs 3 yrs, etc.).

Thus, the "anointed one" of Daniel 9:25 is Cyrus. The end of an initial seven weeks of years brings us to ca. 548 BCE when Cyrus was incorporating the Median and Lydian territories he had just conquered, including northern Mesopotamia, and getting ready to conquer Babylon. This is probably the same point in time at which the author of Isaiah 45:1 came to the conclusion that Cyrus had been anointed by God to liberate the Jewish captives. In short, the authors of Jeremiah 29 and Daniel 9:25 both held the same conviction that Cyrus was anointed by God.

The "anointed one" of Daniel 9:26, on the other hand, is probably the "bad" high priest Menelaus, who was executed about 163/2 BCE.

The "one week (of years)" of 9:27 is approximately the final seven years of the 62 year-week governing period, indicating the period when Antiochus IV desecrates the temple ca. 171-169 BCE and its rededication in late 164 BCE.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city:
to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal both vision and prophet,
and to anoint a most holy place.

Daniel 9:25b from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Jer 29:10, ca. 597 BCE) until the time of an anointed prince (Cyrus, as in Isa 25:1), there shall be seven weeks (49 yrs, making this ca 548 BCE);
25c and for sixty-two weeks (starting in 597 BCE) it (Jerusalem) shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
26a After the sixty-two weeks (ca. 597 - 434 = ca. 163 BCE), an anointed one (Menelaus) shall be cut off and shall have nothing,
26b and the troops of the prince who is to come (Antiochus IV) shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (ca 169-168 BCE). Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27a He (Antiochus IV) shall make a strong covenant with many for one week (ca 171 BCE with the appointment of Menelaus, to ca. 164 BCE when Judas displaced him for a high priest of his choosing),
27b and for half of the week (6 Dec 167 BCE, or earlier, to 13 Dec 164 BCE, not exactly 3.5 years but just over 3 years) he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator (Judas' defeat of Antiochus' forces which resulted in the rededication of the temple, 14 Dec 164 BCE)."

This reconstruction is based on the following facts of history: (All years shown below are years B.C.E., and are derived from the year of the Seleucid era given in the texts using Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75 by Parker & Dubberstein, Brown U. Press, 1956).

560/59 Cyrus II, king of Persia, vassal of the Medes.

550 Cyrus II defeats Astyages, king of Media, and becomes "co-regent" of Media (while Astyages is kept in his palace under house arrest)

547 Babylon forms alliance with Egypt & Lydia to resist Cyrus II.

546 Lydia falls to Cyrus II, and northern Mesopotamian region of Babylonian empire submits to Cyrus II.

539, Oct 12 Babylon falls to Cyrus' general Gobyras. 10/29, Cyrus enters Babylon as king. 10/27/539 BCE to 3/23/538 BCE is Cyrus' Babylonian "Accession Year" (not used for counting year of reign). Unspecified date, Astyages dies and Cyrus is sole ruler of Persians, Medes and Babylon, becomes "the Great." Beginning of Persian empire.

Spring 538/7 - 522/1 BCE
Cyrus, King of Babylon

175, Sep 1 Macc. 1:10 & 2 Macc. 4:7
Antiochus IV Epiphanes succeeds Seleucus IV Philopator.

175 2 Macc. 4:7
Jason outbids High Priesthood from Antiochus and succeeds his brother Onias III.

175-172 2 Macc. 4:10ff.
Jason begins Hellenizing Judean life.

172 2 Macc. 4:21
Antiochus greeted with pomp in Jerusalem on way to secure the Philistine border with Egypt (the imputed “1st invasion” of Egypt in 2 Macc.) after the coronation of Egyptian King Philometor in 172.

172-171 2 Macc. 4:23-26
Menelaus, son of Simon, a Tobiad, outbids Jason, an Oniad, for the High Priesthood and drives Jason as a fugitive into the land of Ammon.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:27-32
Menelaus has trouble delivering his promised tribute to Antiochus, resorting to theft of holy vessels from the Temple.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:33
Onias III protests this theft and retreats to the place of sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis at Daphne, a city 5 miles from Antioch.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:34
Menelaus, by means of Antiochus’ regent Andronicus, has Onias III lured from his sanctuary and killed.

172/1-169 Josephus, Antiq, Book XII, Chapter 10 (edition of W. Whiston)
Onias III’s son, Onias IV, flees to Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra in Egypt where he is allowed to erect a Temple to God at Heliopolis.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:35-38
The Jews protest, and Antiochus IV has Andronicus executed.

169 1 Macc. 1:16-20; 2 Macc. 5:1-6
Jason, thinking Antiochus was killed while invading Egypt, rebels against Menelaus, to try and reacquire the High Priesthood, and attacks Jerusalem, taking much of the city. Menelaus retreats to the Citadel which is held by a Syrian garrison.

169 2 Macc. 5:10-14,7-10
Antiochus hears of this and takes the city back from Jason and forces him back into exile in Ammon.

169 1 Macc. 1:20-23; 2 Macc. 5:15-21
Menelaus lets Antiochus enter the Temple itself to steal the votive offerings of prior kings.

169 2 Macc. 5: 22-23
Antiochus leaves Menelaus in charge of civil government as High priest, but established military governors (Phillip in Jerusalem and Andronicus over Samaria) and kills many who practice the Jewish Law.

168 1 Macc. 1:29-35
Antiochus invades Egypt again, and demands tribute from Menelaus, sending his general Apollonius to extract it from the populace by extreme means if necessary.

168 or 167 1 Macc. 1:41-53; 2 Macc. 5:24-26
Antiochus commands that all peoples in his empire follow Hellenic ways, and forbids the practice of the Jewish Law on pain of death. Apollonius enforces the decree.

168/7 1 Macc. 2:1-48
The priest Mattathias, a priest of the order of Jorarib, defies Antiochus IV’s order and starts a guerrilla war against the Syrians and those who apostatized with Menelaus.

167, Dec 6 1 Macc. 1:54-64; 2 Macc. 6:1-7:42
The Temple is profaned by the erection of a “desolating sacrilege/horrible abomination” (i.e., the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 9) upon the alter of burnt offerings.

166/5 1 Macc. 2:49-69
Mattathias dies.

166/5 1 Macc. 3:1-4:35; 2 Macc. 8:1-7
Judas, son of Mattathias, takes over the resistance movement and upgrades the fight to full scale rebellion.

165/4 1 Macc. 3:35-37
Antiochus IV’s general Lysias was sent against Judas’ forces.

164 1 Macc. 3:38-4:35; 2 Macc. 8:8-36
Judas succeed in defeating the main portion of the Syrian forces in the country.

164 1 Macc. 4:35; 2 Macc. 9:13-29
Defeat of Lysias. Lysias offers peace terms to Judas. Antiochus IV ratifies them as he was busy with a floundering campaign in Persia and/or going insane from a disease.

164, Dec 1 Macc. 6:1-17, 2 Macc. 9:1-12
Antiochus IV was defeated at Elymias in Persia, and on way back to Babylon contracted a disease that killed him. (1 Macc. 6:16, though, erroneously dates his death in the year 163/162 unless his source dated it according to a calendar that started the 149th year of the Seleucid era in the Fall of 164 instead of the Spring of 163 as was the Seleucid norm.)

164, Dec 14 1 Macc. 4:36-60; 2 Macc. 10:1-8
Rededication of the alter in the temple and fortification of Jerusalem and key towns in Judea.

164/163 1 Macc. 4:35; 2 Macc. 10:10-11
Lysias heads to Antioch to secure throne for his puppet Antiochus V Eupator, and get reinforcements to resume battle with Judas.

164 or 163 2 Macc. 10:12-13
Good relations with Ptolemy, an advisor to Antiocus V, until he is denounced as a traitor and he commits suicide.

164-162 1 Macc. 5:1-68; 2 Macc. 10:14-38; 12:1-45
Judas fights off attacks by the Syrian generals Gorgias, Timothy, and Nicanor. In the process, Judas carries the battle for Jewish freedom to foreign soil to strengthen his rebel Jewish government and protect Jews from persecution by their neighbors in Gentile towns and villages.

163/162 1 Macc. 6:18-28
Judas lays siege to the Citadel in Jerusalem, which is still held by the Syrians, and Beth-zur, eventually taking that latter town.

163, Fall 1 Macc. 6:29-54; 2 Macc. 13:1-22
Taking advantage of the Jewish Sabbatical year (Fall 164-Summer 163), Antiochus V and Lysias return with a large force fortified with mercenary troops and they lay siege to Jerusalem and Beth-zur. Due to a lack of provisions, Beth-zur was abandoned to the Syrians and Judas’ forces defending the Sanctuary are seriously reduced.

163/2 1 Macc. 6:55-62; 2 Macc.11:1-38; 13:23-26
Lysias finds out that there is a contender to Antiochus V’s throne and makes peace with Judas in order to be able to head for Antioch, but tears down the city walls.

163/2 2 Macc. 13:3-8
Menelaus, who had joined Lysias’ and Antiochus V’s war party, is accused by some of having started the rebellion through his mis-rule, and Antiochus has him executed.

But who's counting?

maryhelena

Interesting - lots of thought going into this...

My own take on Daniel ch.9, and it's use of the number 7, is that the numbers game can be used in various ways - as the prophecy itself indicates re it's breaking up of the numbers involved. If this is so, then I don't think this prophecy can be restricted to just one application. Basically, to my mind, it's just a case of looking back upon history and re-framing that history into a prophetic template. In this case the 70 x 7 time frame. And if history can't be made to exactly fit the prophetic template - then a little give and take is part of the exercise anyway.....That's for the backward re-write. As for making predictions with these numbers - if they work out - chance and luck would need to have a part... That said, history, as most everything, goes in cycles. Nothing new under the sun, what goes around comes around....

Stephen wants Daniel ch.9 to have some relevance to the events of 70 ce.
Your interpretation wants an application to the events of 164 bc.
Here is an application from Slavonic Josephus - to the events of 37 bc.


Page 172 from the Slavonic Josephus

Immediately the priests started to grieve
and complain to one another, saying among
themselves in secret (things)they would
not dare to say in public because of Herod’s
friends.
For they were saying: ‘The Law forbids us
to have a foreigner (as) king, but we are
expecting the Anointed, the Meek One, of
David’s line. Yet we know that Herod is an
Arab, uncircumcised. The Anointed One
will be called meek but this (king) has
filled our whole land with blood. Under
the Anointed the lame were to walk,
the blind to see, the poor to prosper,
but under this (king) the hale have become
lame, those who could see have gone blind,
the rich are beggared.
But is this (king)the hope of nations?
We detest his misdeeds, are the nations
going to hope in him?”
Alas, God has abandoned us and we are
forgotten by Him, and he wishes
to commit us to desolation and ruin,
not as in the time of Nebuchadnezzar
or Antiochus! For them the prophets were
teachers of the people and promised us
captivity and return. But now there is
no one to ask and no one to console (us)!
In reply the priest Ananus told them:
“I know all the Writings. When Herod was
fighting in front of the city,
I never imagined that God would allow him
to reign over us. But I now understand
that our devastation is <already> at hand.
And consider Daniel’s prophecy. For he
writes that after the Return, the city of
Jerusalem will stand for 70 weeks of
years, that is 400 years and 90, and will
lie waste after those years”.
And they calculated the years and it was so.
And the priest Jonathan answering, said:
“The number of years are as I said, but
where is the Holy of Holies? For
(the prophet) cannot be called this Herod
holy. (since he is) bloodthirsty and foul.”
But one of them, Levi by name, wishing to
appear wiser than them, said whatever
occurred to him, not (quoting) the Scriptures
but (repeating) fairy stories.
They, being scribes, began to seek the time
when the Holy (One) would appear, and were
disgusted by Levi’s words, saying. “You have
broth in your mouth and bone in your head.
They said this to him because he had taken
an early breakfast during the night and his
head was heavy as bone with the drink.
Humiliated, he hurried off to Herod;
and he told him the words of the priests who
had spoken against him.
But Herod sent (his men) by night and
slew them all in secret from the people
so that they should not cause a riot.
And he appointed others <in their place>.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

One way this could have been calculated is simply to add 37 years to 483 years (69 weeks) and one gets to around 520 bc. About the 2nd year of Darius when the temple rebuilding got re-started after being stopped soon after the return from Babylon at the time of the degree of Cyrus.

And if the 6th year of Darius I is around 516 bc - (from 522 bc) - then that would make the re-building of the temple finished 70 years from it's destruction in 587/586 bc.

So, all these three examples show is that Daniel. ch.9 cannot be confined to just one application - all it is is a prophetic time template - a template that can be re-used as historical circumstances 'repeat' themselves.....

stephan huller

Hi everyone

There is no doubt that there are THREE interpretations that have any tradition associated with them (a) the events associated with Antiochus Epiphanes (b) the events associated with Herod the Great and (c) the events associated with Marcus Julius Agrippa at the time of the Jewish War. Porphyry and Josephus make explicit statements about (a). Not only Slavonic Josephus but Eusebius and Origen make reference to (b). Origen and virtually every Jewish and Christian writer in history make reference to some version of (c).

I am not claiming that Agrippa is the 'right' or only answer. I was just - as I note in my email - 'mucking around' with the logic of how someone could have claimed (c) when it doesn't seem to fit the criterion of 490 years from the original prophesy.

I think the 'seam' that a number of scholars have noted with regards to Belshazzar and Darius (i.e. that they couldn't have been contemporaries of one another) is the answer.

Those living in the first century who first advocated the connection with the events of the Jewish War (Justus of Tiberias most likely) were counting backward to the beginning of the reign of Darius II.

That's my point. I found how such a calculation could have been justified. I am not arguing that it is the only possibility.

maryhelena

I don't think the whole 490 years are relevant to 70 ce. The prophecy relates to the going forth of the word re the restoration of Jerusalem or its temple - which puts a linkage upon the applications of the 70 weeks to some such 'going forth of the word' re Jerusalem or it's temple. What I think probably is the case with 70 ce is not the whole 490 years but the 1 week or 7 year part of the 70 weeks. As I posted above, the 37 bc application deals with the 69 weeks, the 483 years. The missing 7 years? The final 7 years starting in 67/66 ce - the fall of Jotapata (if this is history - at least 'Josephus' is interested in prophecy at that time...) and the aborted siege of Jerusalem by Cestius Gallus in 66 ce. 7 years from that time to 73/74 ce and the siege of Masada. Jerusalem being taken in the middle of the week.....

(re Masada - 'Josephus' placing this at the end of the 7 years - but if some theories are right - this event, or a similar event, took place prior to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ce. 'Josephus' simply playing with the prophetic numbers and needing an event to end of his 7 year prophetic time frame - so reused an earlier event. After all, re-writing history as prophetic history is what a 'prophetic historian' is all about....)

spin

The book of Daniel, if it had called Cyrus the anointed prince, one would expect it to treat him with the honor that such a title should carry, yet 10:1 talks of Cyrus with no special sympathy. It was Cyrus who is responsible for the order to rebuild the temple and thus the city. And it was this point, the order to rebuild the city, which was the start of the seventy weeks of years (but I don't know why we must expect it to be part of an accurate historical time line).

However, the term "anointed prince" is quite specific in the Jewish literature that points to the early historical period: coming out of the mixed indications of Zechariah, we find the son of high priestly descent, Jeshua son of Jehozedek, being crowned (Zec 6:11) -- he was the only candidate for "the anointed prince" worthy of mention. (And as I said, the notion of Cyrus "the anointed prince" doesn't gel with Dan 10:1.)

I don't think the idea of a bad anointed one fits into the mentality of Jewish literature. Can you point to any? But the "anointed" one is certainly a priest, as is the "anointed prince".

I see no way past the scholarly view that "the anointed one" cut off in 9:26a is Onias III. He is mentioned in three of the four historical visions: here in 9:26a, in 8:11a, "the prince of the host" who the little horn (Antiochus) acted arrogantly against, and 11:22b, "the prince of the covenant" who is swept away.

The four historical visions are essentially to be understood as different aspects of the same nexus of history, each dealing with its own perspective, but strongly overlapping the others' historical coverage. Reading them together is essential for understanding.

I don't think it quite got to the rededication of the temple, for we should expect a relatively clear indicator for it, though it must have been looming. Chapter 12 has three different dates pointing to the coming end. But it was 164 that seems to have been indicated. From the time Onias was cut off (by Andronicus) to the start of the persecution proper when the temple gets polluted and the tamid is stopped (~167 BCE) there's a rough half week of years and from there another half week to the ideal time of writing. This latter is "the time, two times and half a time" of 7:25b, which gets a little stretched by the end of chapter 12, apparently in expectation.


spin

(It is interesting incidentally to note the more fundie christian fudge with this passage. This is to ignore the disjunction between the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks of 9:25 and add them together to get sixty-nine weeks from the time to rebuild was ordered to the time of the "anointed one".)

stephan huller

The figure in Daniel 9:26 is specifically a משיח נגיד so he is a King but not High Priest.

spin

I gather you mean 9:25.

I explained specifically why Jeshua could be called by that title, for he was both high priest, thus anointed (משיח), and crowned, thus prince (נגיד).

Perhaps you could explain why you figure משיח נגיד must be a King but not High Priest.


spin

stephan huller

The term mashiach nagid in its natural use can only apply to a secular monarch. The term נגיד was virtually defined within the Jewish tradition by its use in the story of the establishment of the first kings of Israel.

In 1 Samuel 8.5 Samuel is requested by the elders to appoint a מלך on their demand (1 Sam 8.22). Samuel ultimately chooses Saul as king over Israel by the ancient lottery system! (1 Sam 10.20-24) The people acclaim Saul as the king (1 Sam 10.24). They confirm Saul as the king who governs them (וימלכו) after the defeat of Nahash, the Ammonite, under his leadership (1 Sam 11.15). Melek here means - the one to rule the people and to protect them.

The term נגיד appears mainly in association with Saul (1 Sam 9.1-10.16). In 1 Sam 9.16 God is said to comman Samuel to anoint a man from the land of Benjamin as נגיד. In 1 Sam 10.1 Samuel anoints Saul as נגיד. We see how נגיד means 'secular ruler' in 2 Sam 5.1-2: "For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The LORD said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be נגיד over Israel."

This passage tells that all the tribes of Israel confessed the divine legitimacy of David's authority over Israel. This acknowledgment is emphasized by the terms shepherd and נגיד (cf also 1 Chr 11.2).

David's acknowledgment by the people of Israel (2 Sm 5.2) emphasised his superseding role over Saul. The emphasis is that, while Saul was king, David played an authentic role as king or נגיד over the people. Thus, the term shepherd and נגיד were used identical with melek (also Ezk 34:2).

This is what the term נגיד. All attempts to apply the terminology to a high priest are contrived. In its natural usage it means 'leader' or 'prince.' When coupled with the term mashiach its application to a secular monarch is unquestionable.

spin

Natural use, huh? You shouldn't make things up. Just look at the way it's used for the leader of the DSS community.

Umm, isn't it true that while the bible uses the term 40 times, it is only used four or five times for Saul?

You aren't able to demonstrate your claim with this. You can insinuate "secular" as much as you like but you haven't shown shown it. If you look at ra(ah ("shepherd", see for example Ps 23, "the lord is my shepherd"), it doesn't suggest secular anything, just tutelage or care. It is in apposition with nagid, so you should consider it. It is used by Isaiah (44:28) for Cyrus, because of what he was doing for the Jews. Look at Ezek 34:15 for adonai yahweh being the shepherd. There is nothing inherently secular about nagid at all. You're barking up the wrong tree.

What you should note first is that there seems to be a distinction of degree between the terms for king and ruler. Rulers of an independent state, such as those of Judah before the exile, are called melek. And nagid is almost exclusively used Jewish leaders. As you know, it gets translated as "captain", "ruler" and sometimes "prince", not "king". You'll note the leader of the post-exilic community combines both religious and community leading roles under Persian rulership and the first such combined leader according to the written tradition is Jeshua. (I'd guess that the use of "prince" for nagid in Dan 9:25 is based on christian misinterpretation of the passage, thinking it refers to Jesus: the LXX has hegemon, which Josephus uses for the Roman prefects of Judea (amongst other non-kings), and the latest JPS uses "leader".)

You should read what you are responding to more closely. Was a claim made that Jeshua was called nagid because he was high priest? The fact is that he was a high priest and he was given control over the Jewish community, apparently instead of Zerubbabel. (To be accurate, Zech 6:11 talks of silver and gold crowns placed on the head of Jeshua and while Zerubbabel, who had earlier been associated with Jeshua and active earlier in Zech 4, he is notably absent when Jeshua receives both crowns.)

You expect a big foreign ruler to be called melek. Is it any wonder that Cyrus was called melek, along with Nebuchadnezzar, Tiglath-Pileser and Sennacherib? nagid would be inappropriate for such a ruler, so we can exclude its use with Cyrus and that ilk. If you can find a single use of nagid for such a ruler, I'd be impressed.


spin