stephan huller

Well that is true that I still not sure what we are arguing over here. I have a tendency to read only the last post. If you are trying to obtain a date for Joshua the high priest then you have to assume that the seventy years terminated at the Return.

I thought the point of the post was to speculate why it was that those living in the first century thought that the seventy weeks terminated in 70 CE. I will have to learn to let go of my threads.

stephan huller

With regards to the title nagid NATURALLY being used to designate a secular monarch read Mettinger, King and Messiah: the civil and sacral legitimation of the Israelite kings, who argues that in most cases the nagid is a title given to a future king before he begins to reign. This term implies that the person must be made king because he is divinely designated. The term occurs eleven times in the "deuteronomistic history" (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 7:8; 1 Kgs 1:35; 14:7; 16:2; 2 Kgs 20:5). In nine of these, the appointer is God. In all eleven, the designee succeeds to the throne. As such A. Alt, (“The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” in Essays in Old Testament History and Religion (trans. JA Wilson; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966 [first published in German in 1930]) and others therefore concluded that the nagid was the divine designee for kingship.

spin

This is a common matter of the original context of the prophecy being lost and receiving a new interpretation for the new era. (Just think of the young woman who will give birth in Isa 7:14 about events during the reign of Ahaz being reinterpreted--poorly--for Jesus.)

My original comments in this thread were aimed at ideas by DCHindley. It was into this discourse that you dropped your little fizzer, "The figure in Daniel 9:26 is specifically a משיח נגיד so he is a King but not High Priest." This is simply incorrect as stated. You cannot exclude the figure being a high priest while being a ruler.


spin

spin

You might want to believe this stuff. I thought you were interested in what the evidence says, not what the pundits say. If that weren't true, you'd be quoting Hengel and his ilk here on this forum.

Look for example at Jer 20:1,

"Now the priest Pashhur son of Immer, who was chief [pakid] officer [nagid] in the house of the lord, heard Jeremiah prophesying these things."

There is no problem using nagid for priests, nor for overtly non-regal positions. See 2 Chr 28:7,

And Zichri, a mighty warrior of Ephraim, killed the king’s son Maaseiah, Azrikam the commander [nagid] of the house, and Elkanah the next in authority to the king.

or 2Ch 32:21a,

And the LORD sent an angel who cut off all the mighty warriors and commanders [nagid] and officers in the camp of the king of Assyria.

And so on.

And note that Hezekiah the king gets called by god, "the prince [nagid] of my people" in 2 Kgs 20:5. He can be referred to with a generic nagid or the more specific melek.

Be happy with the the nice generic Greek hegemon for nagid. A nagid was a somebody of importance, someone who held sway over people.


spin

DCHindley

I don't expect the "book of Daniel" to treat anyone in any way (books are inanimate objects that do not act of their own will). However, I do expect the author of chapter 9 to do so, but only insofar as it serves his purpose. You seem to prefer to interpret chapter 9 in relation to the other three "historical visions". I prefer to look at the four visions as firstly independent of each other, and then brought into relation one to another by the final editor. Final editors may use previously existing sources in manners that are at variance with an original authors' intent.

Jeremiah phrases the edict as issuing from God in circumstances that are datable to 597 (Jer 29:2), not as if from Cyrus. That makes Cyrus' 1st year irrelevant to any chronological scheme implied by the author of chapter 9.

Then why does Zechariah chapter 4 speak of both Zerubbabel and Joshua as anointed ones?

RSV Zechariah 4:1 And the angel who talked with me came again, and waked me, like a man that is wakened out of his sleep. 2 And he said to me, "What do you see?" I said, "I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps which are on the top of it. 3 And there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left." 4 And I said to the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?" 5 Then the angel who talked with me answered me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord." 6 Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. 7 What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain; and he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of `Grace, grace to it!'" 8 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 9 "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 10 For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel. "These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth." 11 Then I said to him, "What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?" 12 And a second time I said to him, "What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the oil is poured out?" 13 He said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord." 14 Then he said, "These are the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth."

Zechariah writes of the return led by Zerubabel the prince and an anointed HP Jeshua. The return in Cyrus' 1st year was by Sheshbazzar, and did not include a HP! In fact, he had to re-establish the inactive priestly families for whatever worship he was authorized to offer, which were more than likely cereal thank offerings, not full fledged animal sacrifices, offered in an open space or tent, as no formal building existed on the foundation. Zerubabbel and Joshua were the ones who actually built a temple and then re-instituted formal sacrifices. Besides, since when do the conventions of the book of Zechariah rule the conventions of the author(s) of Daniel rather than allow different authors to express themselves differently?

As noted above, princes are anointed as well as priests. I thought this was already established in earlier threads? Saul was an anointed prince, but fell from God's graces. When Absalom rebelled from king David, the people of Judah anointed Absalom as king and Absalom forced David into exile. David at length fought his own son, who died in battle.

2 Samuel 19:9-10 9 And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, "The king [David] delivered us from the hand of our enemies, and saved us from the hand of the Philistines; and now he has fled out of the land from Absalom. 10 But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why do you say nothing about bringing the king back?"

Anointing is a symbol of blessing for special individuals dedication to a specific task, whether rule of a nation or overseeing the holy sacrifices. All the wicked kings of the books of Kings/Chronicles were anointed at the start of their rules. That they should not be called anointed ones in remembrance is more a function of their failure to live up to expectations symbolized by their initial blessing by anointment. Kings are mere men, not priests before God. Menelaus represented the first HP to willingly fail to preserve his charge, and this is why this "anointed one" will be "cut-off" (excised from the covenant for this evil act).

Same ol' same ol'. In the matter of Chapter 9, I found it more expedient to think outside the box. 8:11a and 11:22b may well refer to Onias III. I wonder though about Antiochus IV "acting arrogantly against" him. He deposed him for his own brother Jason, but he was not sent into exile. In fact, he went into self exile only after Antiochus deposed and exiled Jason in favor of Menelaus, and he was forced to protest the theft of sacred vessels from the temple so Menelaus could pay his promised tribute. He went to a pagan city of sanctuary deep in Syria. It was Menelaus who got Antiochus' regent Andronicus to lure him out and then kill him. Didn't Antiochus have Andronicus executed for just this violation of this sanctuary? That is not acting arrogantly against Onias III.

No it is not.

True, I believe that all definite historical allusions stop just before the re-dedication, when they become warm and fuzzy statements reflecting what the author was sure would surely come to pass in short order. He read the writing on the wall fairly well, no pun intended. This is also true of the account of the Hellenistic wars in chapters 11 & 12, which lends itself to some extent to your idea that they are all connected. While I have studied these sections before, I have spent most attention on Chapter 9. I'll someday have to take a much closer look at the historical allusions in all the "historical" sections of Daniel.

DCH

stephan huller

The rabbinic tradition only recognizes three figures as the mashiach nagid of Dan 9:25 AND THEY ARE ALL SECULAR RULERS - 1. Cyrus (Rashi), 2. Zerubabel ben Shealtiel (Mayenei Ha'Yeshuah 10:6, Kisvei HaRamban, Vol 1, p. 313, and Sefer Ha-Geulah ch. 3 ed. Chavel p. 282) a descendant of Echaniah (Yehoyachin) King of Judah (for his exact genealogy see comm to 1 Chron 3:13 and Sanhedrin 37b) and Zerubabel was a governor of Judah and 3. Nehemiah ben Chachaliah (Ibn Ezra) who was appointed governor of Judah in the twentieth year of Artachshast (Nechemiah 2:1 and 12:26)

All the rabbinic sources reinforce the same concept - the mashiach nagid is a secular ruler, a governor, a king etc. The only exception is the Yosippon (ch 3) which misunderstands material from the Hegesippus tradition which I have argued isn't Jewish at all.

In my previous post I was citing the traditional Jewish line of reasoning as to why the mashiach nagid HAS TO BE a secular ruler. They inevitably go back to the argument that nagid is the word used to describe David's status.

As always I am only ever interested in traditions. There are a lot of 'theoretical' possibilities of course. But the rabbinic tradition is absolutely consistent in understanding the anointed prince as a secular ruler.

stephan huller

And listen carefully as Eusebius - the loudest exponent for the Jeshua the high priest proposition recognizes the Jewish understanding of nagid as meaning 'secular ruler' or 'governor' and thus has to go out of his way to justify the UNNATURAL choice of a high priest for this role. After rejecting Africanus's attempt to explain the material in a traditional manner he writes:

And if I must reveal what is in my mind, I would say that according to another meaning or interpretation, he that is called in the preceding extract "Christ the governor" (viz. "From the going forth of the word of answering and the building of Jerusalem until Christ the governor"), is none other than the roll of the high priests who governed the people after the prophecy and the Return from Babylon, whom Scripture commonly calls Christs. For I have shewn that they were the only governors of the nation, beginning with Joshua, son of Josedec, the Great Priest, after the return from Babylon, and up to the date of the Coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For I think that the fact that the intermediate period of their primacy, during which they governed, is meant, is shewn by the words, "From the going forth of the answering and the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the governor, is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." And the weeks of years make 483 years added together from the reign of Cyrus up to the Roman Empire, when Pompeius the Roman general attacked Jerusalem and took the city by siege, and the whole city became subject to Rome, so that thenceforward it paid taxes, and obeyed the Roman enactments." [Demonstratio Evangelica 8.391 - 392]

Eusebius is clearly walking on eggshells because the pervasive understanding among Jews and Christians in the period was that the mashiach nagid expectation was connected with the concept of a secular ruler.

spin

I'll give you a for time wasting.

You could be autopedantic and say the author of the interpretation, or the author of that part of it.

I makes clearer sense in their light.

No disagreement.

You need to establish any contrariness from within the sources, not from outside though.

It's sad that our writer doesn't agree, stating that the 70 years began with the order to rebuild.

Only if you ignore what the writer says and prefer to be over literal to the Jeremiah reference.

Obviously because things changed between the writing of Zech 4 & 6. Well, to be more precise, an editor changed Zech 6. As I pointed out to Stephan, 6:11 talks of two crowns being placed on Jeshua's head (at once).

The crown that was for Zerubbabel ends up on Jeshua's head.

I'm not talking about conventions, merely pointing to the de facto situation of Jeshua being both high priest and ruler, a situation reflected in the phrase משיח נגיד found in Dan 9:25.

That's not the issue here: you don't take note of the fact that the writer is using "anointed" as a separate idea, hence he can talk in one place of משיח נגיד and in the other of משיח. And you wouldn't want to claim that the נגיד in 9:26 was anointed would you?

Do you honestly think the Jews who survived the era would have accepted Menelaus as anointed??

Expedience isn't a good criterion...

From the perspective of Yehud, if the new Seleucid king didn't allow Onias III to return to his position, then he acted... well,... arrogantly towards him, for he became known for his arrogance as seen in two of the visions and 2 Macc 9:4, 7, 8 & 11.

It was when Antiochus came to the throne that Jason was given the high priesthood, bribing the king (2 Macc 4:7), so do you really want to argue that Onias remained in Antioch of his own free will? That isn't particularly reasonable to me. He was obviously exiled to Antioch. Daphne was after all the sacred precinct of Antioch, a few kilometers up into the kills. There is nothing strange about Onias hiding out in the temple of Apollo in the eyes of the Seleucid government. He wasn't imprisoned. He seems to have been a "guest of the state" as other such guests, exiles, and hostages.

Come now, DCH, you know better than to make bald assertions. Instead of turning to the other visions that help clarify this the most synthetic of the visions you over read Jeremiah! You must consider all these visions, which clearly deal with aspects of the same history (as well as 2 Macc).

Dan 11 is the most transparent, giving a fairly accurate history of the struggle between the Seleucids (king of the north) and the Ptolemies (king of the south) before focusing on the era of Antiochus IV (11:21ff). It gives his two invasions of Egypt and the two different treatments of Jerusalem. We get more information about the relations between Antiochus and his Jerusalem supporters (than in 9:27) and the change reflects the return from Egypt half way through the week. It is by far the most complete crypto-history of the era in biblical literature. The others are far more condensed in their presentations. (For those interested, here is a brief commentary on Dan 11. I might move this into a blog so it's easier to find.)


spin

spin

Are you trying to do history or what?

I see. You aren't as interested in what the text might actually indicate, which I thought was the primary job. What people long after the fact think might be interesting, but would need to be shown as relevant.

(And, sorry, I see no point in responding to what Eusebius thinks on the subject. You may as well survey my cat, who isn't a big Eusebius fan if I understand her correctly.)


spin

stephan huller

I see the proper interpretation of texts as being preserved in tradition, living or otherwise. When the rabbinic sources say for instance that the messiah would appear as a secular monarch like David, I think this is all that we need to know about what a messiah is or was ever intended to be. I see no point in arguing that THE awaited messiah COULD HAVE BEEN a high priest unless such a tradition emerges from within Judaism.

As such I have no interest in what Christians have to say about Jesus as the messiah unless it (a) conforms to a Jewish precedent or (b) conforms to a Samaritan precedent, living or otherwise. Muslims do make a relatively convincing argument that (i) Mohammed was a prophet like Moses and (ii) that the name Mohammed means 'paraclete' so I am interested in their claims about Mohammed having fulfilled Jewish and Christian prophetic expectations.

I am not telling you how you should conduct your research. Maybe its a cultural thing. Mabye I say Topol too many times on stage when I was growing up.

In this matter, we have a prophesy attributed to a Daniel the court eunuch who lived in the Babylonian period but which was undoubtedly written in the Persian or Greek period. How the hell are we to determine what Daniel really thought? If I was a pious Jew or Christian maybe I might care what the 'Holy Spirit' told Daniel. But I am only interested in knowable commodities.

It is evident that all surviving Jewish interpretation connect the end of the seventy weeks with the destruction of the temple. Was this 'Daniel's formulation? No undoubtedly not but it is a formulation we have a better chance figuring out than the prophesy of an unknown Daniel who lived at a time which is difficult to determine.

Eusebius is an important witness. He was familiar with a lot of texts and traditions. The caution he exhibits promoting what is clearly his own 'innovation' regarding the anointed prince as the high priest Jeshua is telling. It's like he is saying 'I know what you guys are all thinking - the anointed prince has to be a secular ruler, but, if you look at things a certain way you can argue that the high priests were like governors.' A telling argument.

If knew ANY authorities which argued on behalf of Jeshua he'd tell us and he doesn't so they didn't exist or they weren't known to Eusebius. This is rather significant because Eusebius knew a lot of traditions and especially Origen who in a number of important places cites how the Jews interpreted messianic scriptures. Origen tells us that the Jews of the third century identified their Ethnarchs as the continuation of the line of Judah (Gen 49:10). Eusebius couldn't find a ancient witness to his idea of Jeshua being the anointed prince (or least he doesn't tell us if he knew of one).