Fido85

This is my first post here, but I have been exploring this site for a few months now. One thing that I noticed in a recent thread here was the comment that there are no prophesies in the bible that are truly predicitions of the future. I started thinking about that statement and there was one prophesy that I couldn't see a way around.

Well first of all I am a Christian and believe that most if not all of the prophesies that are rejected by the majority here are accurate, but I don't want to dispute that here. I'll give it to you to help answer a question.

From what I have seen, most prophesies are either dated later than claimed in the book itself (Isaiah and Daniel,) the prophesy isn't explicit enough to convince you that it is really referring to the event that theists point to it fufilling (Restortation of Israel in 1948,) or the event described by the prophesy is rejected, and therefore the prophesy must be rejected also. (Isaiah's prediction of Jesus being born of a virgin is an example here. If I am misrepresenting your views here, call me out.

The one that I don't know how you dodge is the first part of the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel 9:24-27. This verse predicts Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem with a remarkable degree of accuracy. Even if Daniel is dated to the Macabean period as you claim it is, it is still sufficiently before Jesus's lifetime for it to be considered a legitimate prophesy. Being that the book was in the Septuagint it cannot be dated much later than that, and certainly not all the way back to the time of Christ. I was just curious to your position regarding this particular passage.

Apikorus

Could you please explain why you think Daniel's "70 weeks (of years)" prophecy has anything to do with Jesus?

Asha'man

Actually, it predicts the arrival of the Jewish messiah. Jesus is clearly not the Jewish messiah described in Daniel.

Also, I've never understood why 70 weeks doesn't actually mean 70 weeks. It seems this prophesy had to be misread twice in order to fit the story of Jesus.

Doctor X

Then you have to wonder if the NT author(s) tailored the stories to fit the prophecy.

Welcome to the forums . . . mind the hounds. . . .

--J.D.

Celsus

I second Apikorus' question. Also, what date would Daniel have to be written to fit a 70 week of years timetable? And finally, what calendar would we be using, and how long is a "year"?

Joel

CX

I have to say I think DX's point is the most pertinent to this discussion. It's obvious that the authors of the gospels are looking to the NT for much of their narrative framework. Interestingly in GMt the author seems confused by the triumphal entry prophecy and has Jesus actually riding on the backs of two animals. But that's beside the point. I guess I would ask can you make a convincing argument that the authors of the gospels are not retrojecting Jesus into hebrew history? On what basis do you conclude that the narratives in the gospels are straight literal history as opposed to midrash or mythmaking?

spin

The normal position held by the vast majority of scholars:

1) the "anointed one" is a normal Hebrew expression indicating "high priest" -- a high priest had to be anointed to be a priest;

2) the anointed one in 9:25 is Jeshua ben Jehozadak, the high priest of the return from Babylon mentioned in several Hebrew bible books;

3) the anointed one who is cut off in 9:26 is the high priest Onias, who was removed from office in 175 BCE, but only killed (cut off) in 172 BCE;

4) the prince who is to come is the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, who was responsible for the removal of Onias, and had a faction in Jerusalem who supported him (the strong covenant with the many);

5) half a week of years later, in 168/7, Antiochus polluted the temple, the desolation decreed;

6) temple sacrifice stopped for the half week of years which followed and the temple remained a place where Greek sacrifices took place (the actual abomination that desolates is probably a statue of Antiochus IV in the form of the Olympian Zeus -- 2 Macc 6:2);

You'll get a lot more detail about the last few weeks of years from Daniel 11, but you won't understand it unless you have some knowledge history of the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the kings of the north and sout.

Is there anything in this else you need to have explained?

I understand that most xians are vastly lacking in knowledge about the Hebrew bible. But I can assure that much regarding Daniel can be dealt with through a scholarly commentary on the book.


spin

Apikorus

These are fairly standard identifications of the two anointed characters from Dan 9:25-26, but this still is conjectural, and it is perhaps surprising that the author of the previous post, who has in other threads railed against scholars passing off conjecture as irrefutable fact, would do the very same here. It goes to show that we all have our prejudices. To his credit, he does present this as the "normal" scholarly position.

Clearly there are two anointed figures (Masoretic tradition makes this particularly clear: note the atnakh in 9:25). In filling in the blanks, biblical scholars invariably retreat to the familiar and look to the bible itself (or Josephus, or the pseudepigrapha, etc.) for likely names. Thus, the Redactor of classical source theory is often identified with Ezra, and the two anointed figures of Daniel 9 are identified with Yeshua ben Yozadak and Onias.

I do think these identifications are likely, but it is hardly a slam-dunk case. At any rate, I would commend anyone interested in Daniel to read John Collins' outstanding commentary in the Hermeneia series.

The "christological" approach to the Hebrew Bible, which incessantly retrojects Jesus of Nazareth therein, is of course nonhistorical. Jewish midrash, which also strays wildly from the plain sense of the text and retrojects later traditions into the biblical text, to my taste does so in far more artistic and interesting ways. Both approaches are slaved to confessional stance, and hence generally corrupt, but rabbinic exegesis strikes me as far more alluring, since it tends to tie all the loose ends together in numerous and inventive ways. Traditional Christians tie all the loose ends to Jesus, which is unforgivably boring and predictable. (Disclaimer: I am a Jew.)

Fido85

All right, thank you for the bit of backround there. The one place that I have actually found the Hebrew of the term that is often translated the annoited one is Meshiach Nagid. Nagid is first used in the bible of Saul. This would seem to suggest a position lightly higher than that of a priest.

The explanation I have seen for the application of the 'sevens' (as it is often translated) is refferring to the sabbatical years that are draw out in Leviticus 25.

The other question I would have for Asha'man is why is Jesus clearly not the Jewish Messiah described in Daniel?

Apikorus

Again, "the Jewish messiah" of Daniel is ambiguous. Daniel 9 speaks of two anointed figures. I think Jesus of Nazareth is no better a candidate for either one than Shimon bar Kosiba or Menachem Schneerson for that matter.

The term nagid connotes rulership, hence it is applied to various kings of Israel (including Saul, David, Jereboam I, et al.). It also applies to the high priest (e.g. 1 Chr 9:11); note the usage there: nagid bayit haelohim = "ruler of the house of God". If there's one thing Jesus was not, it is a ruler in the sense of Israelite kings or high priests. So aside from the fact that the text was written 160 years before Jesus was born, there are other reasons why Jesus is a particularly bad guess here. bar Kokhba would be much better!