spin

You need to realise the way these texts work. The last week is really what it's all about. That's what the reader knows about. All the rest can be as approximate as you like, but the last week is where it's at. The Antiochan repression takes place late 168/7 BCE. Onias was killed 171 BCE. So, 3 1/2 years has been established between an anointed one is removed and the setting up of the "abomination" of desolation in the temple, the removal of the tamid. That's the now of the text for the reader. All that remains is the end of the prince. Well, look, if Daniel can get everything else right (and don't kid yourself that they were going to be able to work out the exact times, but they'd recognize the figures), this end is assured.

Daniel is supposed to be alive during the exile, ie several hundred years earlier. Look at the two similar structures in Enoch: the Apocalypse of Weeks and more especially the Animal Apocalypse, which takes history all the way from Enoch's time to the struggle of Judas Maccabaeus, ie down to exactly the same time frame and logic of Daniel 9. Wow, these guys prophecied all of that stuff right all the way to our time -- the rest is assured.


spin

unknown4

I was thinking, Daniel 9:24-27 wasn't found at Qumran, was it? Does one of the books of Maccabees make an explicit reference to these verses? I found an interesting link, apparently a Christian apologetics website here at, http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/u...c;f=3;t=000141, which talks about, I guess, an "old Greek" version of Daniel 9:24-27 which, although I guess not having punctuation, agrees with the Masoretic text by saying after "seven sevens" by saying "for sixty two sevens", etc.

Perhaps I'm "hyperskeptical", but can it even be proven that Daniel 9:24-27 existed before Jesus' time? I know the NT mentions the "abomination of desolation", but Daniel 9:24-27 doesn't really say that, and doesn't even say "abomination", while 11:31 and 12:11 say "abomination that maketh desolate"

Here's some information from that link, supposedly an old Greek version translated into English I guess:

youmustunderstandandperceivefromthecoming ofawordtorebuildandrestorejerusalemtoanannoinedaru lertherewillbesevensevensforsixty-twosevensitwillberestoredandrebuiltsquareandmoatit inthepressureofthetimesthatisafterthesixty-two sevensanannointedwillbecutoffandwillhaveneitherthe citynorthesanctuary

And check out this translation if you want. This is a different scroll/book/whatever than the one above I suppose. This is one person's personal translation so it could be flawed:

Old Greek version of Daniel 9:25-26

25: Know and understand and open and rejoice and discover the divine order to begin to build jerusalem the city of the Lord.

26: and (there will be) 7 + 70 + 62 weeks to the annointed one, it will be abandoned and the annointed one will not be, and the kingdom of gentiles will ruin the city, and he will bring to an end with wrath and until the time of the end with war he will make war.

And this person says this here:

The Old Greek - (150 B.C.E. or there abouts) This is not the translation that ended up in the later greek septuagint. I am not totally certain of the accuracy of my translation, but it is clear that there is only one annointed one in this translation and there is no punctuation mark possible between 7 and 62 because the text actually says 7 + 70 + 62. No idea what it is referring to despite the word biblical commentary which means that this = 172 B.C.E. ( apparently 139 years into the Seleucid rule).
Needless to say, if this is the original text of Daniel and it is by far our earliest text although since it is a greek translation there is no way to know if it is a good one, but if it is, then we have the wrong text of Daniel 9 in every modern version of the Bible used today!



Unknown4's statement: How he dates this text to 150BCE or thereabouts, I don't know. Note that I'm not saying Daniel 9:24-27 didn't exist before Jesus.

Sven

Oh, I just love out-of-context quoting!

Jim is now a firm supporter of Evolution!

Jim Larmore

I have to respond to this. The nation of Isael did indeed receive the sacred vessels of the Temple from Cyrus, but this wasn't money to re-build the city and the temple. The Israelites would never convert these sacred items to money for that. It'd be like cashing in a precious family err-loom ( ms ) to get money to buy a trivial item. You just don't do that. They did indeed go back and forth and some building did occurr but it didn't get down to ernest until provisions were made by Xerxes after 457 B.C. Israel also did receive some autonomy at that time.

Jim Larmore

It depends on where on the time line you are living. Today, as we are analysing Daniel we look at how the prophecy and history align. If its an unfulfilled future prophecy then of course we have no historical perpespective to do a confirmation from.

You don't know that. Ever wonder why the magii came from a very long distance from the east?I think we can make a good assumption that it was because they knew the general time of His birth from studying the prophecys aand were looking. When the star appeared they came seeking the Christ.

No you are wrong, God never fails. However , I am not an inerrantist with regards to the Bible.

unknown4

Jim, want to know the different date ranges I've seen on the web for what would be the 7th year of Artaxerxes (and that's Longimanus, not Mnemon. If Mnemon, then 457BCE goes out the window pretty much)?

Ussher, I'm assuming the Archbishop, said 454BCE was the 20th year of Artaxerxes (I'm assuming Longimanus). That'd make his 7th year around 467BCE. I've seen a Zoroastrian website which gives Artaxerxes' (I'm assuming Longimanus) end date as 435BCE, instead of 425BCE, so then his 7th year would be also around 467 BCE I guess. I have references to other websites with similar dates which don't exactly match the 457BCE one. I've read that Artaxerxes (I guess Longimanus) co-ruled with his father for 10 years so this could change the "start date". This is all going along with the idea that the 7th year (not 20th) of Artaxerxes (Longimanus, not Mnemon) was the starting date of Daniel 9:24-27.

I've seen the claim that the start date was from Darius II, Cyrus, and Arterxerxes Mnemon, and these are fellow Christian views, mind you. I could provide you the websites if you like for the argumentation.

So, why exactly should we accept the 457BCE date, aside from the idea that it fits to the time of 27CE when Jesus supposedly began his ministry (a date not all Christians agree with), which fellow Christians don't all agree on how long lasted, which you say supposedly lasted 3 and 1/2 years, right? ending at 30CE, right? Which you say is the middle of Daniel's 70th week, right? Even though the antecedent of "he" in Daniel 9:26 I think should naturally be the "prince who shall come", and not "an anointed one" mentioned before that. I mean, even fellow Christians I think would argue with you that the "he" in verse 26 doesn't mean Jesus.

So, the things which need to be agreed upon to get the date of 457BCE:

The Masoretic text is wrong in its punctuation (although funny thing I actually did find a website which agrees with the Masoretic text in the 7 weeks unto an anointed, yet the interpretation is Christian, and this person found a way to fit it to Jesus by saying the "Artaxerxes" was Mnemon by saying the first 7 weeks of Daniel were concurrent with part of "the 62 weeks").

The start date of Daniel 9:24-27 is the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (not Mnemon), in his 7th year (not 20th).

The Jewish encyclopedia seems to me to identify the Artaxerxes with Mnemon, since it refers to Ezra in 398BCE and Nehemiah in 385BCE, which I guess would be the 7th and 20th year of Mnemon: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ta...tle=CHRONOLOGY

I've read enough websites so far, with different start dates and their reasoning for picking them, even perhaps the argument that Daniel's first 7 weeks were concurrent with part of "the 62 weeks" and I think that the Artaxerxes was Mnemon, not Longimanus, that I think most Christians will find a way to fit this to Jesus, no matter what. If someone uses Cyrus or Darius II as the start date, then a different chronology is used.

Jim Larmore

I'm sure you aren't the only one out there wondering this. I don't marry myself to any denomination per se'. I consider myself a Bible Christian and would attend any church that really keeps with what the Bible says. I guess you could say I'm a Messianic Jewish Christian.

Sven

I wonder where you find a church which says that the Earth has a solid firmament above it. :huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

It establishes that Daniel's visitation and message from Gabriel was an early warning to a favored son about imminent destruction in Daniel's immediate future that did not come to pass and therefore could not possibly be referring to Jesus in any way; beside the fact that Gabriel speaks about the Messiah murdering everyone.

And you can see the "notion" of the word "snooker" in this sentence. Now you can see the "notion" of my use of the word "billiards" in this sentence.

And more red herring irrelevancy, since the message is what's more important than whether we can figure out if the author was talking about 70 weeks or 70 years.

The message to Daniel was that "judgement" (for lack of a better term) is imminent and within Daniel's lifetime and everyone who doesn't get his shit together will be murdered by the Messiah in preparation for God arriving on the rampart.

Gabriel's message to Daniel is apocryphal and therefore could not possibly be referring in any way to Jesus unless there is a lost book of "Jesus' Murderous Genocidal Rage Wiping Out All of Jerusalem Just Prior to Being Crucified" that I'm not aware of.

No, it is quite clearly a revision of Jeremiah, thereby aggrandizing Daniel and exhalting him above all others.

Yes, that's true. Just as it was of no consequence when the original story first got passed around.

To exhalt Daniel, of course. You're not exactly talking about rational minded people who stood up and said, "But wait a minute. That didn't happen, therefore this is all lies." If you did, the world would have no problems and these cults would not exist.

Well, you're right. It's a matter of thinking of this in terms of a cult member attempting to be a cult leader by writing his version of events; or cult leaders concocting a prophet after the fact and placing him back in time, but most likely based on a prominent cult figure who everyone believed to be a prophet.

Personally, I vote for the former as the stories told in Daniel all follow a fairly consistent pattern of, "You thought you knew this about that, but everyone else got it wrong; only I, Daniel, the most humble servant of the Lord get to know all the juicy bits."

He's "Access Hollywood" of the Maccabees , whether based on a real person or made up out of whole cloth. Again, my money is real person whose stories were revised over time.

Wallener

I disagree with this. The efficacy of prophesy has nothing to do with how well someone long after the fact can decipher it, it is completely dependent on how well the people it matters to can understand it. If it is not understandable to them, it is either not prophesy or it is an admission G-d just plain sucks at communicating with his people.