TedM

Yes, that's because your explanation of the words is inadequate to explain the true meaning of the passage. "Weeks" CAN'T mean a 7 day period. It's that simple.

I don't think so. I see nothing to indicate that a 7 day period was meant, or a 49 day period was meant. "weeks" just doesn't look like a 7 day period. As such, what does it mean? The traditional explanation is that a week refers to one 7 year period, (ie one week=7 years). I see no reason to conclude though that it couldn't just as easily refer to a 7 (ie one week equals one 7), since everybody knows there are 7 days in a week. The question is: one 7 what? Muller has proposed that it is the occurance of the number 7 in the years used to count down from Cyrus' decree. Given the Jewish priests preoccupation with numerology, as well as the fact that the temple really wasn't completely rebuilt in the 70 years prophecied by Jeremiah, this is not a far-fetched idea at all!

Just not sure about the 7 weeks part, and why it is broken down from the 62 weeks part. On the one hand some may say that it covers the ACTUAL period of captivity of around 49 years (exact years not clear to me) prior to to Cyrus' decree. If so, then weeks could mean "7 years".

Or, using Mullers interpretation, it could be argued (Muller doesn't argue this) that it covers 70 years since the 8th "7" occurred 70 years after Cyrus' decree. As such the author may have somehow wanted to claim that Jeremiah's prophecy was part (called "7 weeks") of a longer period (called "70 weeks") from the decree through final "release" of bondage. Not sure how much water that holds either.

In any case, using Muller's interpretation of "weeks", 69 weeks from Cyrus' decree take us up to Antiochus IV, and the abomination and desolation of the temple. The final week (70 weeks) then would be 167BC, the authors expectation for when the COMPLETE fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy would occur. It is intriguing and seems to mesh better than the traditional claim of a 490 year period leading to Jesus' appearance. (some calculate up to the week of the crucifixion).


I suppose you would disagree then with the traditional interpretation that the passage should mean "seventy weeks of years", too? One needs to apply some common sense, spin: When the literal use of "weeks" simply doesn't work, you look for an alternative explanation. Muller's works splendidly, and much better than the idea that a "week" means 7 years.

ted

spin

Despite having shown that "sevens" is a mistake, it seems I have to get into interpretation...
To be accurate, if it's anything it's a "group of seven" -- which is how the term $BW( was derived (see below).

While not overlooking their use of numbers, you should see that this "preoccupation" with numerology is a retrojection. Otherwise you could show me similar examples, but I guess your source sadly doesn't supply you with any. It's all based on conjecture, isn't it?

But then sloppy writers is harder to accept than neat folly, isn't it?

Anyone who isn't a fundamentalist who has thought about the issue interprets the issue as relating to Antiochus IV, the stoppage of sacrifices and the pollution of the temple. I have bashed fundies over the head on the issue here for years.

The last week, from 171 BCE when the anointed one Onias III was killed, through 167, ie 3 1/2 years later (half a week), when Antiochus IV polluted the temple by turning it into a temple to his foreign god Zeus Olympios and stopping sacrifice, on to the end of Antiochus and the rededication of the temple (164), is accurate. One would expect the information in the time of the writing to be more accurate, wouldn't you think?

The last half week is mentioned in Daniel (7:26 & 12:7) as "a time, two times and half a time", ie three and a half time periods. In fact, the other time periods supplied in Daniel are approximately similar lengths, 8:14, 2230 evenings and mornings, ie 1115 days, ie 3.1 years; 12:11, 1290 days, ie 3.5 years of 364 days.

The last week is thus:

171 death of the anointed one, Onias III

167 pollution of temple, stopping of sacrifices, widespread destruction

164 news of Antiochus's death, rededication of temple.

No.

We haven't looked at the full range of Hebrew usage of $BW( yet though, have we? We've only identified the word. Well, I have.

You can change the meaning of the words you don't like, but do you understand where our notion of sabbatical year comes from (Lev 26:34)? Have you read the Apocalypse of Weeks in the book of Enoch? This last uses the word "week", $BW(, to indicate a time period other than seven days, as fragments from the DSS show. It was written around the time of the latter part of Daniel.

Obviously "week" deals with time periods, but Daniel and Enoch deal with weeks that are not weeks of days, but a longer time period constructed from the base of "week" as "heptad", or "group of seven", the far most common being a group of seven days, though this doesn't stop the reuse of the term in a different context while keeping its basic meaning, as is frequent in Hebrew.

When the original was seventy years and the angel gives seventy weeks as an augmentation of the prophecy, seventy weeks of years seems quite reasonable. It doesn't require wonderful accuracy and one wouldn't expect it (when the writer seemed to think that there were only four Persian kings).

However, you should realize that the "solution" you support is simply blather, being the retrojection of the Arabic number system onto an era which had nothing similar. Ancient Jews used an alphabetic system in which the first nine letters represent the first nine numbers then the next nine letters represented the tens, so seven is ZAYIN, seventy is AYIN and seventy seven would be represented by AYIN ZAYIN. How do you imagine the people counted the "sevens", especially when they wouldn't have perceived the seventies as sevens?


spin

TedM

That's pretty close to what Muller is saying.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that word. It is obvious that certain numbers had great significance to the Jews. Especially the number 7.


Hmmm. 9:26 DOES mention a week, and half a week, and these periods DO seem to look like 7 year periods. For Muller to be correct, it would seem he is in one case referring to "groups of 7s" and in the other case "7 year period". Not sure I buy that.


What is curious is how he can be quite accurate of events through around 167BC, yet you are Ok with the traditional explanation that Daniel 9:25 must be referring to a 490 year period, which would mean the period began around 657BC, which ties to nothing. The beginning of the 70 "weeks" or "groups of 7" is pretty clearly in the year of Cyrus' decree. Muller's reconstruction takes us from the year of decree to possibly the exact year of desecration (I'm unclear about that last 7), whereas the "70 weeks of years" interpretation gets us to 49BC, over 100 years after Daniel was likely written!


I'd like to know Mullers thoughts on this. I simply don't have the knowledge to comment.

Thanks for all of your input here. It's an interesting issue. I'll be the first to admit that numbers can be used to tie all kinds of things--Some have been able to tie the 490 years to the week of Jesus' crucifixion with some approaches. Perhaps Muller's approach is equally creative AND wrong. One might think that those that believe Daniel was written around 167 would be able to come up with their own creative approach to tie the 490 years to 167. Have you by any chance come across one?

thanks again,

ted

spin

What one notices in reading Daniel is that the writers didn't know 6th c. well at all. "Darius the Mede", Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, no sign of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. Then there's the confusion about the Medes and the Persians (that fundies love so much), only four Persian kings. Daniel is not a source of accurate information regarding the sixth c., but things change when dealing with the 3rd c.the accuracy goes up extremely (see here).

You wouldn't expect that the earlier parts of the crypto-history in the seventy weeks to be accurate, but you would the latter parts.

There are a few books about the development of the number system by Georges Ifrah -- the one I have is called From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers. (It's an oldie but a goodie, and there are plenty of 2nd hand copies on Amazon.)

Hopefully I indicated earlier that there is good reason not to expect accuracy for the earlier part of the period when Daniel was set. It is the period closer to the time of the writers that was more important and naturally more accurate.


spin

TedM

Gotcha on all counts. Thanks spin. Much appreciated. Have a great day,

ted

Toto

Ifrah has an updated version: The Universal History of Numbers: From Prehistory to the Invention of the Computer (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Keith&Co.

I don't think that's completely accurate. If there hadn't been a whole lot of other people that thought blacks were getting shafted, then a 'movement' wouldn't have been created on that incident.
If it hadn't have been her, it would have been someone else, some other injustice.
If there hadn't been others already talking about what a crappy place this nation was at the time, from their point of view, she'd have just disappeared into the archives of arrest reports.
For that matter, without growing unrest and dissatisfaction, i doubt she'd have felt moved to stay on that seat.

So, she was a linchpin. Important, but not the one and only woman who could have started the Civil Rights Movement.

Well, first off, this is comparing history of what DID happen to a possibility of what COULD have happened. Almost anything COULD have happened.

COULD a nation of people who were sick of the Roman occupation have felt that they deserved the promised messiah to show up and deliver them from the oppressor, as prophecized?

COULD a nation of humans, or many members of the nation, have latched onto various rumors of messiah claimants, passing stories around and creating a whole false backstory that met their expectations?

COULD these rumors have become formalize into stories that some gobbled up like the emails we get daily on Dr. Pepper's anti-god-can campaign, or the dog that prayed for his owner, or that Darwin changed his mind on his deathbed?

COULD humans 2000 years ago have been as willing to suspend disbelief or critical thinking for their hopes and dreams the way fans of Expelled are willing to do today?

Comparing Parks' civil disobedience to Jesus' execution has a few problems. Parks' actions were prominently reported in the media, as one would expect for a ground-breaking event. Look where you would expect to see mention and, son of a gun, you mostly find it.
Jesus' death is reported to have caused zombie saints to rise up and, three days later, walk into town. Did anyone in 30CE discuss the ramifications of this event? Anyone write home to Rome for zombie reinternment advice? Anyone interview the zombies? Anyone write about the lessons learned from zombie crowd control?

DCHindley

As long as everyone is determined to argue (rather than discuss) the 70 weeks thingy, here is the sequence of events of the period (from a file I created, dated 9/21/97, that I am pretty sure I supplied to Bernard and he used at the time in his web page detail):

In 1 Maccabees, it is not always clear whether the calendar used has a new year in the Spring (in proper Seleucid and Babylonian style) or in the Fall (that used by the government in Judea, as well as for Sabbatical years). All the dates given, except the date of the rededication of the Temple, are compatible with a year starting in the Fall, but fewer would be compatible with one starting in Spring. 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, uses dates that correlate better with a new year beginning in Spring. 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).

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 secure back 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
The traitor 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.

162/1 1 Macc. 7:1-4; 2 Macc. 14:1-2
Demetrius I escapes from Rome where he was a hostage, and claims the kingdom. The Syrian army unilaterally arrests Antiochus V and Lysias, and then executes them on Demetrius I’s orders.

162/1 1 Macc. 7:5-9
Alcimus is appointed High Priest by Demetrius I and sent with general Bacchides with a large force to re-take Judea from Judas and install Alcimus. The treacherous execution of 60 Hasidean priests/scribes by Alcimus. Unable to secure an advantage, they return to Antioch.

161 1 Macc. 7:26-42; 2 Macc. 14:3-46
Demetrius now sends his general Nicanor, who mocks the Alter of God when some priests try to mediate by offering to make sacrifices in the name of the King as a token of submission.

161, Mar 9 1 Macc. 7:26-50; 2 Macc. 15:1-39 (end of 2 Macc.)
Judas meets Nicanor and defeats his army, which is routed and utterly destroyed.

160 or 159 1 Macc. 9:1-22
Bacchides and Alcimus again invade Judea and kill Judas. Alcimus now was installed as High Priest

Etc., etc.

DCH

DCHindley

My best review ever:

"Son, you're the best little boy a mom could have!" My momma, June 16, 1956.

Julie: "Man, you're better than sex!"

Fred: "Sheeeeeit, you're the man!"

etc ...

Y'all want coherency? Here is an interpretation of the prophesy that doesn't require any special twisting of the meaning of words (just who they refer to), etc., uses just one translation (it should be the RSV), and can explain the prophesy as related to Jer 29 (which starts it, and can be dated fairly accurately) and the events up to Antiochus' death:

In modern times, Dan 9:25 is usually associated with the high priest Onias III. But why assume the reference is to a high priest? Why not Cyrus, as 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? By leaving open the question of whether an anointed one was a king/ruler or priest (and I am purposely ignoring "prophet" for the moment), the seventy weeks of Dan 9 can be explained as a sophisticated cryptogram:

The governing period of the cryptogram, according to the way I see it, is actually 62 weeks of years, starting with the year in which Jer 29:10 *appears* to have been uttered (circa 597/6 BCE, based on 29:2) and ending 163/2 BCE.

At the end of an initial seven weeks of years (Dan 9:25) we are in the period (ca. 548 BCE) when Cyrus was incorporating the Median and Lydian territories he had conquered, including northern Mesopotamia, and getting ready to conquer Babylon. This is, incidentally, probably the same point in time in which the author of Isaiah 45:1 came to the conclusion that Cyrus had been anointed by God to liberate the Jewish captives.

The anointed one of Dan 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 re-dedication in late 164 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.

597------------<62 weeks=434 yrs>-------------164
597-<7 weeks=49 yrs>-548 171-<1 week=7 yrs>-164

Cryptically, the author adds 60 to 7 and 1 to yield his "70 years." 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. Besides, for a sequential period of 70 year-weeks to end ca 163 BCE, it would mean it started 653 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. 25a Know therefore and understand:

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 re-dedication of the temple, 14 Dec 164 BCE)."

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.).

The main strength to my proposal, I think, is that it starts with a date that is related to the imputed date of utterance of the seventy year prophesy of Jeremiah (ca. 597 BCE), which Daniel was supposed to be pondering, and ends up at a date very near the date of composition of Daniel as deduced from other evidence.

DCH