 |
 | 
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/24/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | I realize this is controversial, and I'll be in no position to defend it since I'm about to leave for the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. But my opinion, as a lay evangelical Christian who has studied Daniel somewhat, is that mainstream critical scholars are probably right, at least in broad-brush strokes: the reason Daniel's prophecies (especially 11:2-39) are so plain and detail-by-detail accurate - much more so than any other prophecy in the Bible, in fact! - is because they are not meant by the author as predictive prophecy at all. They are probably pseudepigraphical prophecies-after-the-fact finalized in 167 B.C. (during the Seleucid persecution and Maccabean revolt) as inspirational fiction to uplift the faithful. This is what apocalyptic writing is, and Daniel is a combination of moral tale and apocalypse, not 6th-century-B.C. predictive prophecy.
This conclusion is supportable, not on materialistic apriori grounds about the impossibility of predictive prophecy, but on inductive reasoning to the best inference from a wealth of data within the historical/archaeological record and within Daniel itself. Of course each of those points has a counter-argument against it from the traditionalist side, but it is the critical case that benefits from convergence of evidence to a single common explanation.
This does not mean Daniel is a "fraud", however, as we must let the cultures that produced scripture be true to the literary and epistemological conventions of their day, in which apocalypse and pseudepigraphy was accepted and even considered inspired. For us to call Daniel a "fraud" as a result of this conclusion is for us to anachronistically place ourselves and our time (our modern Western way of thought, in which, for example, prophecy ex eventu would be unconscionable) in judgement over them. And for us to call Daniel "uninspired" as a result of this conclusion is for us to imperialistically conclude that God so much prefers our modern way of thought that he would have disdained from associating himself with anything less, for example by meeting his people where they were at and speaking comfort and encouragement to them through all the literary conventions of their time.
Now, this said, I do find it intriguing that Daniel's seventy sevens (9:24-27) and some other references to Maccabean times have some fairly workable parallel interpretations as allusions to the coming of Jesus, his mission and death, and the events leading up to the first Roman-Jewish war. Could this 2nd-century-B.C. apocalypse be inspired with double-meaning for the 1st-century A.D.? I'm not wholly convinced but neither do I rule it out.
Note I answer as someone who is not an open theist. Feel free to ignore my response if you are looking for a specifically-OV reply.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/25/2004 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
This conclusion is supportable, not on materialistic apriori grounds about the impossibility of predictive prophecy, but on inductive reasoning to the best inference from a wealth of data within the historical/archaeological record and within Daniel itself. Of course each of those points has a counter-argument against it from the traditionalist side, but it is the critical case that benefits from convergence of evidence to a single common explanation.
Gotta book recommendation for me on this one?
quote:
And for us to call Daniel "uninspired" as a result of this conclusion is for us to imperialistically conclude that God so much prefers our modern way of thought that he would have disdained from associating himself with anything less, for example by meeting his people where they were at and speaking comfort and encouragement to them through all the literary conventions of their time.
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as "THE" literary convention of their time. Surely there were always Jews/Israelites that viewed the Scriptures in the way inerrantists do today.
quote:
Now, this said, I do find it intriguing that Daniel's seventy sevens (9:24-27) and some other references to Maccabean times have some fairly workable parallel interpretations as allusions to the coming of Jesus, his mission and death, and the events leading up to the first Roman-Jewish war. Could this 2nd-century-B.C. apocalypse be inspired with double-meaning for the 1st-century A.D.? I'm not wholly convinced but neither do I rule it out.
But if the 70 sabbath prophecy did indeed refer to the timing of the "cutting off" of the Messiah, what would that do to the "convergence of evidence to a single common explanation" for Daniel's prophecy?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/26/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | borg,
quote:
Yet such detailed prophecy seems to display the great sovereignty of the Almighty. How do ya'll as OVers contend with such detailed prophecy? Was God just pulling strings and manipulating people to do His will? If this isn't a clear and distinct reference to Divine Foreknowledge, then I struggle as to what is. Just curious what all ya'll think on this topic.
I don't see how the prohecies are all that detailed for one - any number of men could of fulfilled Alexander's role for all I know. Second, not only does God raise up the basest of men to positions of power, it is also true that some of the basest of men SEEK positions of power, making providence easier. And God, having decades and centuries to work providentially towards the fulfillment of those prophecies could do so by preparing base, proud men for their roles.
If humans can do a certain degree of manipulation on other humans without violating their free-will, how much more could God with incredible wisdom, complete knowledge of what's in men hearts, and years to work providentially, do so. Especially since base, evil men are enslaved to their sinfulness and are, thus, easy to manipulate as long as their lusts can be used as means towards God's ends.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/29/2004 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
quote:
This conclusion is supportable, not on materialistic apriori grounds about the impossibility of predictive prophecy, but on inductive reasoning to the best inference from a wealth of data within the historical/archaeological record and within Daniel itself. Of course each of those points has a counter-argument against it from the traditionalist side, but it is the critical case that benefits from convergence of evidence to a single common explanation.
Gotta book recommendation for me on this one?
For a quick overview of the reasons why it is probably best to late-date Daniel, and consider it inspirational fiction (court tale plus apocalypse), see the "Daniel" section of chapter 5 in Craig Hill's In God's Time: the Bible and the Future. This is a very quick overview though - just a few pages. Hill explains that the overall pattern exhibited throughout Daniel accords with what we would expect from a pseudepigraphical retrodiction: numerous historical "difficulties" (ie "errors") in the text, becoming fewer and fewer as the story projects forward into time, while the predictions become more and more detailed and more and more the author's center-of-attention. Finally a point in the predictions is reached when the historical difficulties suddenly re-appear - followed by predictions of the End Times. This is the pattern in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra and numerous other known pieces of inspirational, pseudepigraphical apocalyptic fiction from the culture and time; and since Daniel fits the same pattern, it is likely in the same genre.
For much more in-depth treatment, see a good academic commentary on Daniel. John J. Collins is considered very expert on Daniel, and the subject of early Jewish apocalypse in general, so you could check out his commentary (in the Hermeneia series). Or, for a scholarly evangelical viewpoint which nonetheless generally agrees with the critical case, see John Goldingay's commentary (in the Word series). Goldingay is at Fuller Seminary and so is evangelical-approved, whereas Collins is at Yale Divinity School and thus presumably is evangelical-disapproved :-)
Note: I haven't read or seen Collins commentary myself, and I've read some of Goldingay's but not all. As I said, I've studied Daniel only somewhat.
quote:
quote:
And for us to call Daniel "uninspired" as a result of this conclusion is for us to imperialistically conclude that God so much prefers our modern way of thought that he would have disdained from associating himself with anything less, for example by meeting his people where they were at and speaking comfort and encouragement to them through all the literary conventions of their time.
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as "THE" literary convention of their time. Surely there were always Jews/Israelites that viewed the Scriptures in the way inerrantists do today.
Agreed. But there were a variety of literary conventions, including apocalyptic prophecy-after-the-fact, and I was speaking about God's ability to work through all the literary conventions of the time, not just those that would meet a Cartesian "stamp of approval" :-)
quote:
quote:
Now, this said, I do find it intriguing that Daniel's seventy sevens (9:24-27) and some other references to Maccabean times have some fairly workable parallel interpretations as allusions to the coming of Jesus, his mission and death, and the events leading up to the first Roman-Jewish war. Could this 2nd-century-B.C. apocalypse be inspired with double-meaning for the 1st-century A.D.? I'm not wholly convinced but neither do I rule it out.
But if the 70 sabbath prophecy did indeed refer to the timing of the "cutting off" of the Messiah, what would that do to the "convergence of evidence to a single common explanation" for Daniel's prophecy?
The problem is that the seventy-sevens prophecy fits Maccabean times just as well, if not better, than it fits Jesus' time. In general, virtually all of the features of the book of Daniel fit pretty well into the mold I've been describing; but some of them, strangely, also fit into a Christian mode. I'm not sure they fit as well or better - and even if they did, there are the other numerous points in the book that don't fit the traditional Christian view as well as they do the critical view. But still, what are the chances of them fitting at all? All in all, I find the phenomenon of the book of Daniel to be very reminiscent of other Old Testament texts used by New Testament writers and early Christians: not written expressly about Jesus, but still eminently appropiatable in that direction, and thus - if not predicting Jesus - then foreshadowing him even as they are actually about other things.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 12/1/2004 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
Thanks for the literature references. But what do you mean by...
quote:
The problem is that the seventy-sevens prophecy fits Maccabean times just as well, if not better, than it fits Jesus' time.
What I mean is that there are very good interpretations of the seventy-sevens prophecy that fit Maccabean times. Since that's basically a restatement of what I wrote, though, I'll suppose you are asking for details. Here goes - I know this is very long, so please bear with me:
First, here is how the NRSV translates the passage (Daniel 9:24-27):
quote:
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.
25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week 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.
Now, here is how the NIV translates the same passage:
quote:
24 Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
25 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
Note right away a couple of issues. First there is a translation issue: is it "sevens" or "weeks"? The issue exists because the actual Hebrew word used in the Masoretic Text at this point is (transliterated) shabuwa which means both a normal week of 7 days, a period of 7 years, or the number 7 itself (not the digit, but the concept of a '7'). No one I know of interprets the passage with the understanding that the author is referring to a week of 7 days, because the context alone argues against it (it seems like there is too much happening in the seventieth 'week' for example to fit within 7 days; likewise 62 'weeks' seems to short to rebuild a whole city with walls and trench/moat). But does the passage refer to a week of years in some sense, or literally to sevens in some sense?
Second there is a textual issue. Note the NRSV separates the first 7 sevens/weeks from the next 62, while the NIV conjoins them. This is a pretty significant difference, since in the former case the text is saying that an "anointed prince" (NRSV) will come after the first 7 sevens/weeks, while in the latter case the text is saying that he will not come until 69 of the sevens/weeks have passed. So which is it? The NRSV follows the Masoretic Text, which includes a mark interpreted as a disjunctive punctuation mark (like a semicolon) between the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks. But the NIV follows the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture which predates the Masoretic Text considerably and thus gives a clue as to how the early Hebrew text may have been understood by the community.
I'm not a text scholar by any means, so I'm not sure which is right. I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls include most of Daniel, and that they follow the Masoretic Text pretty closely, but I don't believe things like vowel points and punctuation marks existed until later Hebrew anyway (eg the Masoretes themselves). So even if the copies of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls lack the "semicolon" that wouldn't be definitive. From what I understand, it is possible that the "semicolon" was a late addition by the Masoretes reflecting a reaction against Christian interpretation of Daniel, which would suggest that the NIV and Septuagint have it right. But on the other hand, if the 7 and 62 weeks are meant to be conjoined (as in the NIV and Septuagint), it is puzzling that they are mentioned distinctly at all instead of just 69 sevens/weeks. The mention of 7 weeks as distinct from 62 weeks suggests some break-point in the middle - which would favor the NRSV and Masoretic Text. So its a tossup - which is probably why different excellent translations by dedicated and learned scholars have gone different ways here (indicating simply a disagreement in the professional community).
Now, lets get to interpretation. The only Christian preterist interpretations of this passage I'm familiar with (that is, interpretations which culminate in Jesus and the first Roman/Jewish War), require that weeks/sevens are understood as series of years (either sabbath year cycles, or so-called "prophetic year" cycles of 7 years of 360 days apiece). They also require that the 7 and 62 weeks/sevens are consecutive, as in the Septuagint and NIV. Ditto for Christian futurist/premillenialist interpretations which are all-too-popular these days. But as it turns out there are interpretations culminating in Maccabean times which are more flexible than this - they work in more ways than this. I'll get to that in a minute.
But first, before examining the various sevens/weeks, look at where the passage culminates. Almost half the passage (the latter half) focuses on someone who brings war and desolation, destroys the city and sanctuary, convenants with some, ends sacrifice and offering, sets up something in the temple which is an abomination, and then is himself destroyed afterward. Compare this with where the vision and interpretation in Daniel 8 culminates (the following is from the NIV):
quote:
8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.
9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land.
10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.
11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.
12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled-the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."
...
21 "The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.
22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
23 In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise.
24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people.
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Notice the same pattern as in Daniel 9: Daniel 8 culminates, likewise, in a figure who brings devastation and deceit, who stops daily sacrifice, desecrates the sanctuary, tramples God's people, and is himself finally destroyed.
Again, look at where the next (and final, climactic) apocalyptic vision in Daniel culminates, in Daniel 11. There is so much incredible detail here, I will only snip some excerpts (also from the NIV):
quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue.
...
30 ...Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.
...
36 The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.
...
45 ...Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Again we see the same essence as in Daniel 8 and 9: an arrogant figure who brings war and desecration, who ends sacrifice, who brings an abomination into the temple, who finds cooperation from many of the Jews, yet is ultimately destroyed.
Now, everyone agrees that the "little horn" of Daniel 8 is the Greek Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Likewise everyone agrees that Daniel 11:21ff (at least up to verse 35 or 36) refers to Antiochus IV. It is therefore quite likely that the culmination of Daniel 9:24-27 is also Antiochus IV. The parallels between all of these passages are so strong: establishing a covenant with many Jews who forsake Jewish law; erecting an abomination in the temple which desecrates it; forbidding Jewish religious practice - sacrifice and etc; killing and oppressing Jews who refuse to knuckle under; bringing war to the country; etc. And sandwiched between Daniel 8 and 11 as it is, the likelihood of Daniel 9 referring to the same thing is increased. And of course all of these passages' description of the oppressor and his activities match up quite well with what we know from history (the books of 1 and 2 Maccabbees, Josephus, and the annals of the Greek Seleucid kings themselves).
So then, turning to the sevens/weeks: if Daniel 9 culiminates with Antiochus IV, what about the sevens/weeks leading up to it? As it turns out, there are at least two workable interprations. The first assumes that a seven/week refers to a period of 7 standard solar years (the Jews knew and followed a solar calendar so this is reasonable). It also assumes the disjunction between the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks as found in the punctuated Masoretic Text and such translations as the NRSV:
- From the context of Daniel 9, we know that the character of Daniel had been meditating on the prophecies of Jeremiah 25 and 29, in which God gives word that his people will be exiled from the land and, after 70 years, restored to it. Daniel considers this to be a prophecy of a "desolation of Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:2, NIV), thus equating Jerusalem with not just the city and temple but the nation, the land, and the people.
Thus, according to this interpretation, the issuing of the "word" (NRSV) or "decree" (NIV) to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem", in Daniel 9:25, is this word issued from God to the prophet Jeremiah. That happened in 588/587 B.C. according to the accepted date that Jeremiah 29 implies for itself. That date, then, marks the beginning of the 70 sevens/weeks and, in particular, the first 7 sevens/weeks, according to this interpretation.
- 49 years (that is, 7 sevens/weeks) later, in 539/538 B.C., history and scripture tell us that Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylonia and set the Jewish exiles free to return to the land. For this act, the author of Isaiah 45 himself considers Cyrus to be an "anointed one" (see Isaiah 45:1).
Thus Cyrus corresponds to the "anointed prince" (NRSV) or "the Anointed One, the ruler" (NIV) of Daniel 9:25, closing out the first disjunctive set of 7 sevens/weeks. (Remember, this interpretation assumes the validity of the Masoretic disjunction between the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks.)
- I'll skip over the 62 sevens/weeks for now, returning to it below...
- As for the last (seventieth) seven/week, this interpretation sees it as corresponding to the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as follows. In 172/171 B.C. Antiochus IV began by assasinating the legitimate Jewish high priest Onias III (who had been deposed by Antiochus IV in 175/174 B.C. I think). Around the same time, Antiochus IV deposed Jason, the brother of Onias III who had replaced Onias III upon his assasination. We know this from accounts in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Josephus, and some other texts I believe.
Onias III and Jason were brothers, the last in the line of Davidic high priests; their removal "cut off" that line from history. Furthermore, priests in Jewish custom were anointed with oil, and referred to as "anointed ones" sometimes in scripture (see Leviticus 4, for example) and even as "princes" (eg in Daniel 11:22 where nobody doubts "prince of the covenant" (NIV) refers to Onias III).
So, according to this interpretation, the 70th seven/week begins when either Onias III or Jason (the "anointed one") are "cut off".
- History continues to tell us that Antiochus IV's persecutions really accelerated, affecting the average person, during 168/167 B.C. At this time, armies of Antiochus IV entered Jerusalem at least twice, killing thousands of people (2 Maccabees says eighty thousand; Josephus says "some" but makes clear that by "some" he may mean as much as ten thousand or more) and taking thousands others captive. Buildings were burned and the city walls toppled. The temple was looted and stripped of its ritual instruments. Jewish religious practice - sacrifice, offering, circumcision, prayer to God - was outlawed for the first time in the history of Jews under foreign rulers, and violaters were put to death. Read Josephus for some of the horrible imagery (http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/flavius_josephus_1.html), including mothers crucified with their (strangled) infants hung before them from their necks! Not surprisingly, many Jews defected and obeyed the king and his new "covenant" (Daniel 9:27).
Finally, Antiochus IV had an altar erected to Zeus on God's altar in the temple, and pigs were sacrificed on it - something the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees directly refer to as "desolating sacrilege", if I remember correctly. Notice the close alignment of all this with Daniel 9:26-27 (not to mention the above-mentioned passages in Daniel 8 and 11), and especially with the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel 9:27 (and Daniel 11:31). And further notice that all this happens in 168/167 B.C. - 3 to 4 years through the 70th seven/week - ie, "in the middle of" (Daniel 9:27, NIV), according to this interpretation.
- Finally, history tells us that Antiochus IV met his death in 165/164 B.C. precisely at the end of the 70th seven/week, according to this interpretation.
So this Maccabean interpretation fits pretty well - indeed the only real problem is with the 62 sevens/weeks that I glossed over. From Cyrus (end of the 7th seven/week) to Onias III and Jason (beginning of the 70th seven/week) is not mathematically equal to 62 7-year periods. Scholars who adopt this interpretation consider the middle 62 sevens/weeks to be non-literal - a literary device so that the 70 sevens/weeks parallel the 70 years of Jeremiah (Daniel's pondering of which, remember, kicks off and sets the context for the whole chapter). Still, it has to be said that the literality of everything else in the interpretation makes this non-literal explanation somewhat suspect.
There is a second Maccabean interpretation, however, that perhaps fits better. It assumes that the sevens/weeks are, in fact, references to the number-concept seven - a literalism which, considering the literality of much of the rest of Daniel, is appealing (over against the weeks-of-years idea common to both the above interpretation and every Christian preterist or futurist interpretation I'm familiar with). It also assumes (along with the Septuagint and NIV, for example) that the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks are conjunctive, not disjunctive.
- In 539/538 B.C., shortly after his conquest of Babylonia, Cyrus of Persia let the Jews return. In practice, this was done through a written proclamation disseminated throughout the Persian Empire, allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple there, as recorded in Ezra 1. The proclamation even provided for the funds necessary to accomplish the reconstruction.
Although the proclamation was specifically for reconstruction of the temple, we must understand - according to this interpretation (and I think this is reasonable) - that the Jews considered the temple and the city synonymous. For example, Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy itself is usually considered to be demarcated by the destruction of Jerusalem (city and temple) in 586 B.C. and the reconsecration of the reconstructed temple alone in 516 B.C. Certainly the author of Daniel agreed with this - he considered Jeremiah's prophecy to concern "Jerusalem" (see Daniel 9:2) even though the prophecy is fulfilled by reconsecration of the temple alone. And elsewhere in the Bible, Jerusalem the city and the temple are equated - most specifically, in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13, Cyrus is said to have authorized the rebuilding of city and temple.
So it seems reasonable to anchor the beginning of the 70 sevens/weeks to the "word" (NRSV) or "decree" (NIV) of Cyrus in 539/538 B.C. This then kicks-off the consecutive 69 sevens/weeks found in the Septuagint, NIV and other translations.
- As for the events terminating the 69th seven/week and leading into the 70th, this interpretation locates all of them within the events of 168/167 B.C. described above (I'll get to the sevens/weeks themselves below).
- For example, the coming of the "anointed prince" (NRSV) referred to in Daniel 9:25 may refer to Mattathias, founder of the Maccabean rebellion that saved Israel from Antiochus IV. Mattathias was a priest (see the earlier discussion regarding how a priest may biblically be referred to as "anointed" and "prince") who began his resistance in 167/166 B.C. However, this is a little late for the 168/167 B.C. timeframe.
Alternatively, the coming of the "anointed prince" (NRSV) of Daniel 9:25 may refer to the attack of Antiochus IV himself on Jerusalem. Foreign kings who fit significantly into God's plan are referred to as "anointed" elsewhere in scripture - eg Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1, though in that passage Cyrus may be considered anointed because he performs God's saving work by freeing the Jews - something that surely wouldn't describe Antiochus IV! On the other hand, since Antiochus IV - in this interpretation, as in the above one - is seen as the "prince who is to come" (NRSV) of Daniel 9:26, perhaps this "anointed prince" does refer to him after all.
The coming of the "anointed prince" could even refer to Jason, who - after having been deposed in 172/171 B.C. as I described above - attempted to regain power and at one point, in 168 B.C. I believe, led a small army into Jerusalem.
- The "anointed one" who is "cut off" after the 69 sevens/weeks could be Mattathias, who died in 166/165 B.C. This is also a bit late, but the text only specifies that the "cutting off" happened after the 69th seven/week, not necessarily during the subsequent 70th seven/week.
Alternatively, the "anointed one" who is "cut off" after the 69th seven/week could refer to Jason, who (after his insurrection in Jerusalem failed) finally fled Judea permanently in 168 B.C.
- As for the remainder of the points of correlation between historical events and the text in this interpretation - the abomination, the ending of sacrifice and offering, the war and destruction, etc - they are the same as described for the first interpretation above.
- OK then - how to fit 70 sevens/weeks into those events, according to this second interpretation? The answer is through a numerological scheme focusing on the occurance of multiples of the number seven among the digits of a series of numbers related to the above dates. (Remember, this interpretation assumes that the sevens/weeks literally refer to the number-concept seven.) The scheme goes like this:
In 539/538 B.C. Cyrus kicks-off the 70 sevens with his decree.
By 538/537 B.C., one year has gone by. By 537/536 B.C., two years have gone by. And so on. None of these count in the scheme, because no occurance of a multiple of 7 has appeared within the digits of the numbers in the series...yet.
By 532/531 B.C., 7 years have gone by - this counts as the first 'seven', because a multiple of 7 has finally appeared within the digits of the numbers in the series.
By 522/521 B.C., 17 years have gone by - this counts as a second 'seven'. By 512/511 B.C., 27 years have gone by - this counts as a third 'seven'. And so on.
By 469/468 B.C., 70 years have gone by - this counts as another 'seven' (making 8 'sevens' total at this point). In Hebrew, the digit '7' is not used in the number '70', however - instead, a different digit (letter, actually) is used. So note that the scheme is not counting just occurances of the digit '7', but occurances of digits that are multiples of '7' - Hebrew has one such digit for '7' and another for '70'.
By the next year, 468/467 B.C., 71 years have gone by - this counts as another 'seven' (making 9 total at this point) because of the occurance of the digit for 70 in that number. Note that when 77 years have gone by (ie in 462/461 B.C.) that counts for 2 'sevens', not one.
So, what happens if this scheme is allowed to proceed all the way to 168/167 B.C.? Interestingly, 168/167 B.C. marks the end of the 69th 'seven' and the beginning of the 70th 'seven'! Note that 168/167 B.C. is when Antiochus IV's persecutions worsen and, in December of 167 B.C. (ie, while the 70th 'seven' is underway - "in the middle of" in the sense of "during" albeit not the exact middle), is when the desecration of the temple with the altar of Zeus is erected and pigs are first sacrified upon it.
This fascinating scheme seems to have been discovered rather recently by a non-professional, and I've not found it in any commentaries. This is my main hesitation in discussing this interpretation. My reference for it is the notes of Bernard Muller (the discoverer) which he has posted at http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html - he has a chart which makes the pattern easier to see, toward the bottom of the page.
[*]
[*]
So there are at least two interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 which align pretty well with Maccabean times. Now, I haven't discussed the preterist and futurist Christian interpretations and don't intend to in this posting. Suffice it to say that preterist interpretations have some amazing successes and - conversely - tough problems of their own (you should know upfront, though, that I find futurist premillenialist interpretations to be poor). I'm not sure which is "better" - if only by their close alignment with the culminations of the visions of Daniel 8 and 11 (and of Daniel 2 and 7, for that matter - something I won't get into here), I suspect the Maccabean interpretations are closer to the mark, as far as the original author was concerned. But as I earlier said, I can't help but think there might be some double-meaning in this.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 12/1/2004 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
WOW!! Thanks for the detailed reply!!! I'm fixing to print it off for more relxed reading. Thanks again!
Oops, I just made a few very minor edits to my reply to clarify some things. You may miss them, but that's OK. Even if you end up reading my original reply, I think it will still make sense.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 12/9/2004 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I forgot to mention - there is yet a third Maccabean interpretation of the seventy sevens/weeks of Daniel 9. Goldingay mentions it in his commentary, IIRC. In presenting it, I'll assume you've read the lengthy post above.
This third interpretation, like the first I presented, assumes the validity of the Masoretic Text in Daniel 9:25 (ie, a disjunction between the 7 sevens/weeks and the 62 sevens/weeks). It also assumes that a 'seven/week' refers to a period of 7 solar years, like the first interpretation. But unlike the first, it accounts literally for all three of the periods of sevens/weeks (whereas the first interpretation I presented accounts only for the 7 and the 70th, taking the 62 as non-literal).
As I mentioned in my previous posting, the prophecy of Jeremiah in Daniel 9:2, concerning the 70 years of exile, is often referred to Jeremiah 25 or 29. For reasons I presented when discussing the first interpretation, it is plausible to consider Jeremiah 29 as constituting "the word...to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25, NRSV). Well, for similar reasons that "word" may be identified with Jeremiah 25 instead. (Unlike Jeremiah 29, Jeremiah 25 does not specifically mention a restoration after 70 years. But it does proclaim a 70-year limit on the duration of the "devastation of Jerusalem". Thus Jeremiah 25 does imply a subsequent restoration, and so can plausibly qualify, in similar manner as can Jeremiah 29, as the "word...to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" of Daniel 9:25.) Note the date for Jeremiah 25 is 605 B.C. That is the date used in this third interpretation to anchor the beginning of the prophecy.
Now, Daniel 9:25 in the Masoretic Text goes on to say that, from the time of this "word", to the coming of an "anointed prince" (NRSV), 7 sevens/weeks will pass. The passage continues, saying that for 62 sevens/weeks Jerusalem will be "built again" but in a "troubled time". Although the 70th seven/week comes after the 62 sevens/weeks, nowhere does the grammar of the text require that the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks be serial (ie the 62 coming after the 7). This third interpretation proceeds based on that observation:
The 7 sevens/weeks, between the "word" and the "anointed prince", are considered to extend from 605 B.C. (the word of Jeremiah 25). What happened 49 years (7 'weeks') after 605 B.C. - ie in 556 B.C.? That is the year that Cyrus took power in Persia. As I discussed in my earlier posting, Cyrus is a plausible candidate for the "anointed prince", so if the beginning of the "time of an anointed prince" (NRSV) refers to the date of his accession, this fits perfectly.
Meanwhile, the 62 sevens/weeks, during which Jerusalem is built in troubled times, and after which another "anointed one" is "cut off", are considered - in this interpretation - to extend simultaneously from the "word" of 605 B.C. for 434 years (62 'weeks' of 7 years apiece = 434 years), taking us to 171 B.C. And, as I discussed in the first interpretation, 171 B.C. is the timeframe of the assasination of Onias III and overthrow of Jason, the last Zadokite high priests of Israel. Either is a plausible candidate for an "anointed one" who is "cut off" - and so here the dates fit too.
The final, 70th seven/week is then understood, in this interpretation, similarly to how it is understood in the first. Ie, as the period of 7 years from 171 B.C. to Antiochus IV Ephiphanes' death in 164 B.C.
The only problem with this interpretation is the description of Jerusalem being "built" in "troubled times" over the period of the 62 sevens/weeks, which in this interpretation runs from 605 B.C. to 172 B.C. Certainly these were troubled times for the temple and city, but its destruction did not occur until 586 B.C. and its rebuilding did not begin until the 520's B.C. Otherwise, though, this interpretation fits literally pretty well. In particular, there is nothing in the biblical text that requires the 7 and 62 sevens/weeks to be serial; making them parallel, as in this interpretation, is grammatically allowed.
Thus there is at least a third Maccabean interpretation of Daniel 9 which fits fairly well. It is not perfect, but none of the interpretations are, including the Messianic ones. And this indicates to me that the grammatical/historical meaning of Daniel 9 (ie what it meant to the author who wrote it and the community who first read it - ie before Roman times) is quite plausibly Maccabean, not Messianic. This, of course, does not prohibit us from reading the passage as pregnant with Messianic double-meaning, too, in the same way we do with many of the Old Testament passages cited in the New Testament (eg in Matthew). But it does mean we must be careful not to claim that those Messianic readings are what the passages originally meant in context beforehand, as if the passages were self-awarely "predicting" Jesus.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:31 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|