spin

While I might agree with your conclusion, it has nothing to do with the atnah. It is an indicator for the reading of the text. What do you gather from the atnah in Gen 1:1?


spin

Wallener

Good question. To me it suggests that perhaps "beginning" belongs more to "creating" than to "the heavens and the earth". Maybe something like "at the beginning of..." rather than the "in The Beginning" writ large that we normally see.

spin

Sorry, when I said that the atnah "is an indicator for the reading of the text", I meant in the sense of reading aloud, performing the text, physically saying it.

I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on the apparent absolute nature of the beginning in Gen 1:1, but that is more a christian misunderstanding of the text.

Yes, "beginning of", reshit is a construct with bara. In the beginning of (God creates the heavens and the earth (and the earth was ...)) God said,...

But this is a digression. My only point was that we can't read semantic or grammatical information into the atnah, especially the one in Dan 9:25, though it does coincide with the reading I have put forward on other grounds.


spin

Anat

OK, there is no need for a whole discussion of cantillation. The point is, there is a reason for the way cantillation marks are placed in a verse - if there is more than one idea in a verse, they will be separated by a mafsik (disjunctive mark0 whereas closely related words will be connected by a mehaber (conjunctive mark). And the various disjunctive marks follow a hierarchy. Thus, the separation by the atnah after 'shiv'a' is of higher rank than the separation by zakef katon after 'nagid' or 'v'harutz'. For more details, see Kol Kore.

unknown4

Some information for Jim concerning the time lines and anointed ones if he's interested:

If one takes 586BCE as a start date, from something in the book of Jeremiah, like Jeremiah 30:17,18 which refers to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem, to 537BCE (a decree of Cyrus), there's 7 weeks. 62 weeks or 434 years from there brings one to around 103BCE, (537-434=103) and a Jewish view is that this anointed was Alexander Yannai (103BCE-76BCE), who was "cut off", which, from what I've read, except for two places in the Tanakh, refers to "evil" people. The Hebrew word, transliterated "karet", could simply mean a "cutting off" from God, from my understanding.

So, there you have it. Two anointeds from a Jewish point of view.

spin

Unknown4,

Have at least once contemplated the possibility that all four visions in the second part of Daniel, as I sustained with the table in post #119?

Yeah, I know, you're giving a Jewish point of view, still I'll pose the question, as if the position I have put forward is correct it ends all the speculation.

Besides KRT is not as clear cut as the analysis above makes it. Look at Josh 7:9 or 1 Kgs 18:4. Cutting off is a strong image, quite aggressive and is also used for hands and heads, so it's only natural that it gets used a lot with enemies. But anointed ones are usually good guys.

Also that one starts 586 BCE doesn't explain why the call to restore didn't come at the beginning as clearly indicated in Daniel.


spin

unknown4

You're saying that these references are to Antiochus Epiphanes? I think most Christians even take some of those references to be to him.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the 586BCE date. Whether that's accurate, or not, I don't know. I don't see how it would need to be totally accurate from a Jewish viewpoint. How long was Cyrus the king of Persia? Well, let me ask you this, you think the "word" that Daniel mentioned was Cyrus' decree, around 537BCE? If so, then 7 weeks until Jeshua the high priest or Zerababbel is the first "anointed one", in your view? About what date would that be? Then 434 years from that point, we get to Antiochus? I'm not saying you're wrong, but if that is the case, Daniel's dates are even further off than if one takes Jeremiah 30:17,18 to be the start date, aren't they?

I noticed that the first Greek translation I mentioned says "a word", and your Hebrew translation says "word" without a definite article. Seems kind of vague. Which "word"? I guess that's the big question.

As for "cut off", I guess I'm just trying to say what it can mean. Are you saying that every time the early books of the Bible mentions "cut off from his people" or "the soul who does this shall be cut off", or whatever, it meant a literal killing? Like this passage for instance:

Numbers 19:20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he [is] unclean.

As for "anointed" meaning good guys, yea, I'd say that's pretty much true. But Saul was the Lord's anointed, wasn't he?

spin

Yep, all of them.

It doesn't need to be accurate, but if one is going to talk about the word to rebuild going out, the audience would know that that wasn't the start of the exile.

What's important is the final week, which the audience would be aware about. Your average listener wouldn't know when events outside their experience happened. The audience would recognize who an anointed one who was cut off was and they would be aware of the persecution of Antiochus IV, inaugurated with the installation of his statue in the temple (the abomination [=idol] that desolates) and his suspension of the daily sacrifice. They would be just waiting for the end to be poured out on the desolator.

"to restore and to rebuild"

I was saying that you cannot assume it refers to "evil" people. It's just a violent verb.

So, Saul was bad? He stopped being the anointed one when David got oiled, didn't he?

The audience would naturally take it to mean "good guy". Besides, how could they not think of Onias III as the one cut off? As my table in #119 shows, he's also referred to as the prince of the host and the prince of the covenant in the other visions.


spin

And I think Jimbo is in Limbo now that his trip into history has dissipated and he may have realized that he's got the wrong Artaxerxes so his fiddling the books has failed.

unknown4

Well, Daniel is portrayed as reading the scrolls of Jeremiah, and contemplating the number of years for the exile, so if one were knowledgable, I suppose one could connect it to something Jeremiah said as the start date. Regardless, if Daniel was really written around the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, then there would be the connection to current events, regardless of when the "start date" actually was, or if one could actually figure it out when it exactly was.

Laugh, I think Saul was still referred to as the Lord's anointed even a bit after Saul was dead, at least from what David is recorded as saying. Wasn't Saul presented as kind of "evil", at least in his latter days, associating with a medium? And there's the mention of how the "spirit of the Lord" departed from Saul, and the references to an "evil spirit" that was bothering Saul. Doesn't sound like he was exactly God's favorite during that time to me.

I'm just saying that "anointed" doesn't have to mean a "good guy". All it might mean is that someone got "oiled", right? A king, a priest, regardless of that person's actual moral character, right?

I'm wondering, what is your view of the phrase "v'ayn lo", which is translated as "he shall have nothing", or "there is nothing to him" or however it's translated. How would you translate it? I find it interesting that one of the Greek versions I mentioned says "andwillhaveneitherthecitynorthesanctuary"/

heh.. I'm doubting he thinks he may have the wrong Artaxerxes. I think he's fairly well set in his theory, since it fits well mathematically.

Anat

I wouldn't say an anointed one is necessarily good, he is someone chosen by God to perform a task as part of God's plans. Elijah is commanded to anoint Elisha, Jehu and Hazael to punish Israel.