Critique of GM on Daniel 9 - jwstudies

Foreword: Structure <strong>of</strong> the chapters <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>ContentsFOREWORD: STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTERS OF <strong>GM</strong> ......................................................... viThe topic <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Critique</strong> ......................................................................................................... viiBroad structure ....................................................................................................................... vii<strong>GM</strong> CHAPTER 9, PROPHECIES THAT CAME TRUE (pp 117 to 133) ........................................... 1CREATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL ............................................... 2Support from a range <strong>of</strong> disciplines ............................................................................................ 3Evidences for the date <strong>of</strong> composition ........................................................................................ 4Typical process <strong>of</strong> Bible writing................................................................................................. 5THE CONTEXT OF DANIEL 9.................................................................................................... 8SCRIPTURE SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 9Septuagint (LXX) ..................................................................................................................... 9Masoretic Text (MT) ............................................................................................................... 10kaige-Theodotion / Theodotionic.............................................................................................. 11The Old Greek [OG] rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 ............................................................................... 12Impact on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>of</strong> Scriptural variants and reinterpretations ......................................................... 13EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF DANIEL 9 ........................................................ 14Very early Christian belief ....................................................................................................... 14The first attested Christian commentary on Daniel 9 .................................................................. 14The first application <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 to Jesus Christ......................................................................... 15Flourish <strong>of</strong> interest in the 3rd and 4th centuries ......................................................................... 15Early Church Fathers............................................................................................................... 16Wide differences ..................................................................................................................... 19Summary <strong>of</strong> the early Christian interpretation ........................................................................... 20THE INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9 BY <strong>GM</strong>....................................................................... 21Outline <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>‘s interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖.............................................................. 21KEY WORDS AT DANIEL 9:24-27 ........................................................................................... 22NWT rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9:24-27 with the key words highlighted ............................................. 22NIV rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9:24-27 with the key words highlighted ............................................... 23Application <strong>of</strong> the key words by <strong>GM</strong> ........................................................................................ 24KEY WORD: ―WEEKS/SEVENS/HEPTADS‖ ............................................................................ 27Amplified Bible ...................................................................................................................... 27The task set for Daniel‘s people ............................................................................................... 28KEY WORD: ―DECREE/COMMAND‖ ...................................................................................... 29Translation as ―decree‖ affected by desired association.............................................................. 30Possible events when the word went forth ................................................................................. 31The event selected by <strong>GM</strong> ....................................................................................................... 32KEY WORD: ―RESTORE‖ ........................................................................................................ 33KEY WORD: ―REBUILD‖ ......................................................................................................... 36iii

Foreword: Structure <strong>of</strong> the chapters <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>Chapters 4 to 8 address criticisms <strong>of</strong> the Bible, whether it is believable, contains myths, is selfcontradictoryor is wrong scientifically.Chapters 9 to 12 claim to demonstrate divine inspiration through prophecies, its internal harmonyand that it emanates from a higher source <strong>of</strong> wisdom.The final two chapters 13 and 14 deal with the Bible‘s “remarkable effect on people’s lives”.These areas are <strong>of</strong>fered by the author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> as the evidences that the ―Bible really is God‘s Word‖.The topic <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Critique</strong>This <strong>Critique</strong> examines <strong>GM</strong> Chapter 9, Prophecies that Came True.In that Chapter, <strong>GM</strong> states that only God can predict events that will come to pass. This suggests thatfor the author, God directly intervened in the writing <strong>of</strong> the Bible, since it contains fulfilled predictiveprophecies yet man is incapable <strong>of</strong> doing so. The author does not indicate whether ―inspiration‖means that God suspended the author‘s mental capacities and took over the writer‘s creative skills, orwhether God spoke directly to each writer.Did God write the Bible? Did he protect it from error during writing, transmission and translation? Orwas it crafted by men and women intent on creating an image, at times resorting to stories anddistortions <strong>of</strong> their history for the purpose <strong>of</strong> moulding disparate family groups into a nation having anational identity?In this chapter <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>, does the author show that God made a prediction that came to pass?Is <strong>GM</strong>‘s interpretation <strong>of</strong> the prophecy under review valid? Where did that interpretation come from?Does <strong>GM</strong>‘s interpretation represent the intent <strong>of</strong> the original writer?Did God provide a prophecy that caused people to seek a specific event at a specific time? Or is <strong>GM</strong>‘sinterpretation a rearguard invention that was brought about because <strong>of</strong> repeated failures <strong>of</strong> anticipatedfulfilments?Broad structureAfter discussing the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, such as consideration <strong>of</strong> the Book, such as the date when it wascomposed. The author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> then provides an interpretation <strong>of</strong> the ―70 weeks‖. Consequently, this<strong>Critique</strong> follows that pattern.vii

CREATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL<strong>GM</strong> says evidence that the Bible is the ―Word <strong>of</strong> God‖ is provided by the Book‘s ability to makeexact predictions which came to pass. <strong>GM</strong> thus argues against those who claim the Book <strong>of</strong> Danielwas written after prophecies had been fulfilled.<strong>GM</strong>, pages 128-129People who believe that the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel was written about 164 BCE relate it to the period whenthe Jews were suffering persecution at the hands <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes. These people believe thatthe scribes responsible for the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel were associating the predicament confronting their ownJewish community with the nation‘s previous experience at the hand <strong>of</strong> another tyrant, Babylon. Inwriting the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, the scribes were thus providing coded messages <strong>of</strong> encouragement to theirimmediate Jewish community during their persecution.For example, the parables <strong>of</strong> the lion‘s den and survival in the fire were intended to strengthen theresolve <strong>of</strong> the 2nd century Jews as they faced enormous problems. The 2nd century writers wrappedmythologies designed to provide their community with the moral fortitude that had been requiredwhen the nation had suffering similarly. An historical novel intended to provide contemporarystrength and determination.Probably no date <strong>of</strong> a biblical book has been so positively asserted orso stridently denied as that <strong>of</strong> Daniel. Traditionally, the work has beenassigned to the end <strong>of</strong> the sixth century B.C. The unusually detailedprophecies <strong>of</strong> events in Palestinian history have led many to proposedates much later ...A large number <strong>of</strong> scholars (liberal and conservative) now contendthat Daniel was written ca. 164. To some conservative scholars, sucha date would make the prophecies ―after the event‖ (ex eventu) andtherefore fraudulent; the book would be deception, not divinerevelation. The discussion has been long and sometimes heated.Language. ... The linguistic evidence, both Hebrew and Aramaic,suggests a date possibly in the fourth or even fifth century. Theevidence <strong>of</strong> the LXX and Qumram indicates that Daniel was inexistence in its full form, and had been distributed over a relativelywide area, prior to the time <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes. This raisesquestions for theories <strong>of</strong> a second-century authorship. ...Scarcely any biblical book calls for more humility and caution as t<strong>of</strong>irm conclusions <strong>of</strong> its date and authorship. 22 Old Testament Survey, ―Daniel‖, page 574, Lasor, Hubbard and Bush2

Creation and transmission <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> DanielA broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It isagreed that Daniel is pseudoepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 arelegendary in character and the visions in chapters 7-12 werecomposed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era. 7Evidences for the date <strong>of</strong> composition<strong>GM</strong>, page 129Scholars are fully aware <strong>of</strong> these issues and more. They discuss their findings openly and with vigour,yet there is no definitive evidence that enables them to arrive at a consensus. Great value is obtainedby reading the thoughts <strong>of</strong> these various scholars.The canon <strong>of</strong> the Prophets (Nevi‘im) was closed by about 200 BCwith the composition <strong>of</strong> Malachi. The apocryphal book <strong>of</strong> Sirach,written about 180 BC, contains a long section (chapters 44-50) inpraise <strong>of</strong> ―famous men‖ from Jewish history that does not includeDaniel. However 1 Maccabees, composed about 100 BC, repeatsmuch <strong>of</strong> that list with the addition <strong>of</strong> Daniel. 8While some <strong>of</strong> the Daniel scrolls found in the caves <strong>of</strong> the Dead Sea were written in an early style,they have been dated to have been written at about 100 BCE to 30 CE. Some scholars say that theform <strong>of</strong> the writing on the scrolls shows that the Dead Sea community did not consider Daniel ascanonical while others disagree with that assessment.Our answers to the questions concerning the canonical status <strong>of</strong> theBook <strong>of</strong> Daniel at Qumran and concerning the light which the DeadSea Scrolls shed on the dating <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel can at present beonly tentative. 9 <strong>GM</strong>, page 129When parts <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel contain evidences <strong>of</strong> being written before the 2nd century BCE, thiscould indicate that the people <strong>of</strong> the 2nd century BCE, at the time <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes, made use7 The Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), page 2, John J.; Flint,Peter W. editors.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_<strong>of</strong>_Daniel9 The Book Of Daniel And The Dead Sea Scrolls , page 7, Walter E. Wegner4

Creation and transmission <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel<strong>of</strong> earlier compositions and traditions when they prepared a book that was intended to address theircontemporary situation.The book <strong>of</strong> Daniel contains errors that a 6 th century BCE writer would have been fully aware <strong>of</strong>:Captivity <strong>of</strong> Daniel during an unrecorded deportation, possibly confusing him with a Danelmentioned by Ezekiel.Applying the madness <strong>of</strong> Nabonidus and his years <strong>of</strong> absence Babylon to NebuchadnezzarConfusion over Cyrus and Darius.Saying that Jeremiah predicted Jerusalem would be laid low for 70 years, yet he said no suchthing.Given the changes to the text <strong>of</strong> Daniel and its innumerable reinterpretations, promoting a date <strong>of</strong>composition further back in time reduces the possibility <strong>of</strong> knowing exactly what was originallywritten and what was originally intended.Typical process <strong>of</strong> Bible writingThe process followed in developing the writings that ultimately were accepted as Hebrew Scriptureprovides the likely pattern for the final development <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel.As they produced each work, priests and scribes had their eyes firmly fixed on their own community.While they wrote, they reshaped the nation‘s ―history‖, couching it in ways that were intended todirectly influence their own immediate community. They used their history writing to shape thenational memory and culture. History was a theological, nationalistic tool, not a literal record.The question <strong>of</strong> historical basis is a complicated one. It is sufficient tosay here that Daniel‘s main purpose is not to record detailed historybut to use stories and symbols to demonstrate God‘s control <strong>of</strong>history. ...When Daniel gives its accounts <strong>of</strong> ―Nebuchadnezzar,‖ ―Belshazzar,‖and ―Darius the Mede,‖ it intends to reveal the meaning <strong>of</strong> theirdestinies with God and the superiority <strong>of</strong> God‘s kingship to theirs. Itwill not do to read Daniel the same way we read the writing <strong>of</strong> thehistory <strong>of</strong> the Roman Empire. 10EXAMPLE OF BIBLE WRITING FROM THE TORAHThe first books <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible – the Torah – are composed <strong>of</strong> individual source documents thatwere stitched together some time in the 6th or 5th century BCE. Scholars give these source documentsnames such as J, E, D and P. The combination <strong>of</strong> sources is demonstrated through the story <strong>of</strong> theFlood, where two separate accounts were woven together. 11EXAMPLE OF BIBLE WRITING FROM ISAIAHLikewise, Scribes – in all probability living in exile during the neo-Babylonian Captivity – mouldedwritings to produce the single book <strong>of</strong> Isaiah. The first 39 chapters likely originated during the 8thcentury BCE while the subsequent chapters were composed 200 years later, during the time <strong>of</strong> theCaptivity. The later writings were produced in the style <strong>of</strong> the earlier writings.The traditional view that Isaiah wrote the entire book is held today byexceedingly few scholars. Many critics today accept two books (1-39and 40-66), usually called ―First‖ and ―Second‖ (or ―Deutero‖) Isaiah.Further refinement finds three books. 1210 Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, page 56711 See, for example: Who Wrote the Bible? By Richard Elliott Friedman12 Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, page 2815

Creation and transmission <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> DanielAUTHOR/COMPILER OF DANIEL FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCEDUREThis pattern indicates that scribes during the period <strong>of</strong> the Maccabees in all probability collected andcollated existing oral traditions and written traditions, then carefully stitched them together to providesupport and direction to their own immediate suffering community. These compilers cast their product– the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel – into that previous time 400 years earlier when the nation had previouslysuffered at the hands <strong>of</strong> an oppressor. The 164 BCE writers were promising their community theywould experience the very same protection and release that had been experienced by those who hadbeen held under the sway <strong>of</strong> the neo-Babylonian Empire.Thus writers <strong>of</strong> a later period, generally agreed to be those at the time <strong>of</strong> the Maccabean revolt, wouldhave gathered previously written and oral material, then added their own compositions to produce acompilation that was valid for their own time. If writers did stitch material from distinct sources toproduce the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, that could account for matters such as its two major languages, and forsome parts being written in the first person (―I Daniel‖) while other parts are written in the thirdperson.Daniel was completed sometime during the period <strong>of</strong> the Maccabeanrevolt, i.e. between the halting <strong>of</strong> the daily tamid sacrifice and itsresumption (168-165 BCE). ... Daniel 1 – 6 are pre-Maccabean andwere apparently taken up by the Maccabean author/compiler whowrote Daniel 7 – 12 and attached them to the earlier cycle <strong>of</strong> tales. ...The book [<strong>of</strong> Daniel] was the product <strong>of</strong> the ―wisdom‖ circles. ...The diverse origins <strong>of</strong> the material in the book [<strong>of</strong> Daniel] complicateany attempt to characterize the compiler. ... The material in Daniel 1 –6 arose ... (probably in the Ptolemaic times). ...The use <strong>of</strong> earlier material suggests that the final writer found itgenerally sympathetic to his concerns. 13The following defence <strong>of</strong> a late date for the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel refers to its purpose and to the generalmethodology employed by the ancient Hebrews when they wrote their sacred works.Today the consensus <strong>of</strong> scholars understands the whole book to be puttogether by an author and editor who first collected traditional storiesin chapters 1-6 about the boy-hero Daniel showing his courage duringthe persecutions <strong>of</strong> exile and then added to them the visions <strong>of</strong>chapters 7-12 that predicted the coming end <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanesand his persecution. This kind <strong>of</strong> writing is called a vaticinium exeventu, a ―prediction after the fact,‖ in which an author creates acharacter <strong>of</strong> long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all theimportant events that have already happened right up to the author‘sown time and place. The language is <strong>of</strong>ten coded with symbolicanimals and colors and dates to protect its message from thepersecuting authorities. And its focus is not predicting the future, butgiving some meaning to present happenings by explaining the pastevents that led up to this terrible situation, and showing that all alongGod has permitted everything that takes place and is planning to actsoon again to rescue his people.To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historicalfacts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths. ...Although the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel is not intended to be primarily anhistorical record, it does reflect the general course <strong>of</strong> events in the13 For Whom was Daniel Important? pages 229, 230, 231, by Lester L. Grabbe, in ―The Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel:composition and reception‖, by John Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint, Cameraon VanEpps6

Creation and transmission <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Danielpost-exilic period from the time <strong>of</strong> Nebuchadnezzar down to theMaccabees, a period <strong>of</strong> nearly four hundred years. Its whole purposeis to interpret that history without being wedded to the details. Theauthors were intensely interested in what was happening and whatGod would do about it. They were convinced that God really does actat every moment even when it may seem that he has abandoned hispeople.They also tried to answer why Israel suffered, and why God allowedpeople to be martyred for following his law. These were pressingproblems at the time <strong>of</strong> the Maccabees, and the authors used all theskill at their command to create an answer, combining wisdom,prophecy and the new form <strong>of</strong> apocalyptic. They needed to convincea despairing people <strong>of</strong> the mercy <strong>of</strong> God and so they even left thecourt tales <strong>of</strong> chapters 2-7 in Aramaic, the language <strong>of</strong> the Babyloniancourt, for the sake <strong>of</strong> realism. Aside from a few chapters in Ezra,Daniel is the only Old Testament book with Aramaic in it. 1414 Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, pages 509, 510, Lawrence Boadt,7

THE CONTEXT OF DANIEL 9The 9th chapter <strong>of</strong> Daniel is concerned with the condition <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem and, in particular, the state <strong>of</strong>its sanctuary, the temple <strong>of</strong> the Jews‘ God. At the end <strong>of</strong> the 8th chapter, Daniel had said he wasincapable <strong>of</strong> understanding that vision, which related the status <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary at Jerusalem.Jerusalem and its sanctuary lay in ruins. Daniel read that the Lord had given his word that his city andsanctuary would be rebuilt, and at same time, the Lord had declared that his people would be restored.When he read this from Jeremiah, Daniel also saw that the Lord‘s promise was conditional – thepeople had to repent and turn from their past ways.So Daniel prayed for that restoration and rebuilding, confessing the sins and waywardness <strong>of</strong> theLord‘s people. This subservience, Daniel recognised, would continue until the people turned to theLord with a contrite heart. His actions show this, as does his fervent prayer, which he poured out as hefaced that city he was so concerned for.When Daniel read communications from Jeremiah, he ―understood‖ that the devastated state was tolast 70 years. It is clear that Jeremiah said nothing <strong>of</strong> the sort, for Jeremiah had said that the Lord‘snation would be subservient to the heathen Babylonians for ―70‖ years. There are at least threepossible explanations for the misunderstanding at Daniel 9:1. The writer(s) <strong>of</strong> Daniel made a mistake. This is possible, if the writer was living in the 2ndcentury BCE.2. Rather than taking this mathematically or with technical precision, the ancients were using―70 years‖ this number symbolically to mean ―a long time‖. This is possible, since thenumbers 7 and 10 were individually spiritually significant, which was magnified when theywere combined to form the number 70.3. The writer did not take the reading <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah literally. This is possible, since the wordsrendered ―know‖ and ―understand‖ carry the meaning <strong>of</strong> spiritual insight, a special type <strong>of</strong>understanding.4. The writer wished to give significance to the ―70 ‗sevens‘‖ that were about to be introducedby linking them to the well-known ―70 years‖ <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah. This also required the spiritualmeaning <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew for ―know‖ and ―understand‖.8

SCRIPTURE SOURCESAvailable sources <strong>of</strong> the text <strong>of</strong> Daniel include:Old Greek (G)Septuagint (LXX)Theodiotonic ( ) (kaige-Theodotion)Theodotion ( )Syrian (S)Masoretic (H)This diagram illustrates linkages in the development and transmission <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Scriptures.Septuagint (LXX)The Septuagint is a group <strong>of</strong> Greek translations <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Scriptures. It provides a major andearly source <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel. The following is from the most highly respected Hebrew scholar,Emanuel Tov, a renowned scholar <strong>of</strong> Textual Criticism (Lower Criticism). In other Chapters <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>,the author rails against Higher Criticism, but remains silent on Lower Criticism, thereby indicatingtacit acceptance <strong>of</strong> that discipline.The name ―Septuagint‖ designates the ancient Jewish-Greektranslation <strong>of</strong> Hebrew Scripture. … The name ―LXX‖ ultimately cameto designate a group <strong>of</strong> many translations <strong>of</strong> different nature thatrepresent different approaches and were produced at different times.Most translation units reflect the original Greek translations (the ―OldGreek‖), while some reflect later revisions.The collection <strong>of</strong> Greek Scripture contains Greek versions <strong>of</strong> all thebooks <strong>of</strong> Hebrew Scripture (the Hebrew ―canon‖). In addition, itcontains Greek versions <strong>of</strong> Hebrew books such as Baruch and Sirachthat were not included in the collection <strong>of</strong> Hebrew Scripture. It alsoincludes writings originally written in Greek (e.g. 1–4 Maccabees), sothat the ―LXX‖ is not only a collection <strong>of</strong> translated works. All theseGreek books, most <strong>of</strong> them translations from Hebrew and Aramaic,9

Scripture sourcesMasoretic Text (MT)were accepted as authoritative (sacred) by the Alexandrian Jewishcommunity and later by all the Jews. …The most reliable complete texts <strong>of</strong> the LXX are the codices B(Vaticanus), A (Alexandrinus), and S (Sinaiticus), from the 4th-5thcenturies C.E. …Its Jewish nature is reflected in its terminology and exegesis.However, it was soon recognized that the LXX <strong>of</strong>ten differed fromthe Hebrew text that was current in Palestine from the second-firstcenturies B.C.E. onwards and that was later to become the MasoreticText. These differences were not to the liking <strong>of</strong> the Pharisaic (protorabbinic)circles, and soon a trend developed to replace the LXX withnew translations. These new translations adapted the Old Greektranslation to the Hebrew text then current in Palestine. …Many renderings reflect the cultural environment <strong>of</strong> the translators,which consisted <strong>of</strong> elements <strong>of</strong> both the Palestinian and Egyptiansocieties. When analyzing individual renderings, the translator‘s focusis on their linguistic and exegetical background and on the ideasbehind them.The translators <strong>of</strong>ten added religious background to verses in HebrewScripture.The LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that differed, <strong>of</strong>tengreatly, from MT. This is not surprising, since in antiquity manydiffering copies <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Scripture text were in circulation.Some <strong>of</strong> these differences are minor, while others involve a wholeparagraph, chapter, or even book. All these copies contain―Scripture.‖ 15The Masoretic Text (MT) is in Hebrew, and is the most recent, dating from the Middle Ages. Theearlier Greek texts, particularly those recovered at the Dead Sea, predate the MT by a thousand yearsor more. By and large, the texts <strong>of</strong> Daniel recovered from the caves <strong>of</strong> the Dead Sea communitiessupport the readings <strong>of</strong> the LXX.The following is again from the renowned Hebrew Scholar Emanuel Tov, from his book dealing withtextual Criticism <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible. As previously noted, in the other Chapters <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> the authorindicates tacit acceptance <strong>of</strong> Lower Criticism.The name Masoretic Text refers to a group <strong>of</strong> manuscripts which areclosely related to each other. ...[MT] is an abstract unit reflected in various sources which differ fromeach other in many details. Moreover, it is difficult to know whetherthere ever existed a single text which served as the archetype <strong>of</strong>[MT]. 16The biblical text has been transmitted in many ancient and medievalsources which are known to us from modern editions in differentlanguages: ... All <strong>of</strong> these textual witnesses differ from each other to agreater or lesser extent. Since no textual source contains what couldbe called ―the‖ biblical text, a serious involvement in biblical studiesclearly necessitates the study <strong>of</strong> all sources, including the differences15 http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/lxx.intro.short.varia.pdf (accessed October 2010)16 Textual Criticism <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, pages 22-2310

Scripture sourcesbetween them. The comparison and analysis <strong>of</strong> these textualdifferences hold a central place within textual criticism.Textual differences are also reflected in modern editions <strong>of</strong> thetraditional text <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, the so-called Masoretic Text(MT), since these editions are based on different manuscripts. 17One would not have expected differences between the printed editions<strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, for if a fully unified textual tradition would havebeen possible at any one given period, it would certainly seem to beso after the invention <strong>of</strong> printing. Such is not the case, however. ...Moreover, these editions reflect not only the various medievalmanuscripts, but also the personal views <strong>of</strong> the different editors.Furthermore, each edition contains a certain number <strong>of</strong> printingerrors. Therefore, there does not exist any one edition which agrees inall <strong>of</strong> its details with another.. 18Most <strong>of</strong> the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmittedfrom one generation to the next have been corrupted in one way oranother. 19A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted inthe biblical text. In contradistinction to mistakes, which are notcontrollable, the insertion <strong>of</strong> corrections and changes derives from aconscious effort to change the text in minor and major details,including the insertion <strong>of</strong> novel ideas. Such tampering with the text isevidenced in all textual witnesses. ... Paradoxically, the s<strong>of</strong>erim andMasoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted. 20Even were we to surmise that [MT] reflects the ―original‖ form <strong>of</strong> theBible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflectsthis ―original text‖, since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textualunit, but is itself represented by many witnesses.Similar problems arise when one compares [MT] with the othertextual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrewsource <strong>of</strong> the individual ancient translations. We do not know which<strong>of</strong> all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it shouldnot be postulated in advance that [MT] reflects the original text <strong>of</strong> thebiblical books better than the other texts. 21kaige-Theodotion / TheodotionicEarly Christians, possibly due to the influence <strong>of</strong> Origen, used a Greek translation <strong>of</strong> the LXX theyascribed to Theodotion, an otherwise unknown person who lived in the 2nd century CE. Modernscholars were perplexed, since citations were made <strong>of</strong> that translation 200 years previously, includingin the New Testament. This problem was resolved when an early scroll <strong>of</strong> the translation wasunearthed, known as kaige-Theodotion.[A] person who, in the 2nd cent., worked on the text <strong>of</strong> the Greek OTwas Theodotion, possibly an Ephesian convert to Judaism who livedin the reign <strong>of</strong> Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180). His readings areidentified in marginal notations <strong>of</strong> LXX MSS by the symbol . ...17 ibid, Tov, page 218 ibid., Tov, page 319 ibid., Tov, page 820 ibid., page 921 ibid., Tov, page 1111

Scripture sourcesEarly in the Christian era, the version <strong>of</strong> Daniel that goes byTheodotion‘s name displaced the LXX version, which was anextremely free rendering <strong>of</strong> the canonical Daniel. ...It seems certain, however, that this second-century Theodotion waspreceded in his work <strong>of</strong> revision by a person <strong>of</strong> the 1st cent[ury] BC,or 1st cent[ury] AD, styled ―Ur-Theodotion‖ by modern scholarship.The reason for this postulate is the appearance <strong>of</strong> ―Theodotionic‖readings in writings antedating the time <strong>of</strong> the activity <strong>of</strong> the secondcenturyTheodotion. Some <strong>of</strong> these readings are found in the NT (cf.the quotation in 1 Cor 15:54 <strong>of</strong> Isa. 25 8, which corresponds exactlyto that <strong>of</strong> Theodotion). ...O‘Connell said this early revision <strong>of</strong> Exodus is to be identified withthe Kaige recension discovered by Barthélemy. ...In an era when many long-held positions are being challenged,scholars have even doubted that the ―Theodotionic‖ Daniel hails fromTheodotion, thinking that it more likely is also a translation by Ur-Theodotion. 22------------Theodotion (probably 2nd cent.), translator or reviser <strong>of</strong> the Greekversion <strong>of</strong> the OT placed in Origen‘s Hexapla next after the LXX;some <strong>of</strong> the excerpts here attributed to him may be the work <strong>of</strong> earlierrevisers. This is especially likely in the text <strong>of</strong> Dan[iel], which wasused in the Church from the 4th cent[ury] in preference to the LXX. 23------------Theodotion‘s revision was quoted in sources which preceded theperiod <strong>of</strong> the historical Theodotion by two hundred years or more.Therefore scholars came to the conclusion that these quotations werecited from a previous translation (―proto-Theodotion‖) on which thehistorical Theodotion was based. We now know that the conjecturedproto-Theodotion is none other than kaige-Theodotion tentativelyascribed to the middle <strong>of</strong> the first century BCE. 24The Old Greek [OG] rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9An early attempt to update the chronology <strong>of</strong> the 70 year-weeks in thelight <strong>of</strong> the subsequent events <strong>of</strong> Hasmonean history appears in theOld Greek (OG) translation <strong>of</strong> Daniel. It is well known that thetranslation‘s deviation from ‗Hebraica veritas‘ was at least partly toblame for the early Church‘s subsequent replacement <strong>of</strong> it with theversion <strong>of</strong> Theodotion‘. 25In general, it may be said that the lexical choices <strong>of</strong> the OG reveal anorientation that is historical and retrospective, focusing far more onthe cessation and Maccabean restoration <strong>of</strong> sacerdotal functions thanon the coming <strong>of</strong> the eschatological age or a future ‗anointed one‘.This perspective is sharply at variance with the later development. 2622 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ―Septuagint‖, page 404, by Ge<strong>of</strong>frey W. Bromiley23The Concise Oxford Dictionary <strong>of</strong> the Christian Church. ―Theodotion.―, E. A. Livingstone.Encyclopedia.com. 24 ibid., Tov, page 14525 Adler, page 20626 Adler, page 20812

Scripture sourcesImpact on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>of</strong> Scriptural variants and reinterpretationsThe author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> asserts that only God successfully foretells the future. The author also asserts thatthe Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, almost contemporary with the events itdescribes.If these assertions were correct, that would mean God was personally responsible for the creation <strong>of</strong>those words but he took no care to prevent them being amended or reinterpreted, even from the veryearliest period. It would mean that the very earliest Jewish scribes, who had just experienced the mosthumiliating subservience to Babylon because <strong>of</strong> their disobedience to Yahweh, were prepared toquickly amend the words <strong>of</strong> his prophecy.These changes to the transmitted text prevent anyone being able to dogmatically state precisely whatGod had caused to be written. This is evidenced through the widely divergent range <strong>of</strong> interpretations<strong>of</strong> the prophecy through the ages and currently, as a search <strong>of</strong> the Internet quickly reveals. Throughoutthe centuries and millennia, the prophecy has bred a plethora <strong>of</strong> divergent interpretations, employingan array <strong>of</strong> starting events, concluding events, and incompatible lists <strong>of</strong> chronologies and dates.The interpretation given by the <strong>GM</strong> book reflects a late trend, and is not supported by any NewTestament writer. It is most unwise for the <strong>GM</strong> book to makes definite assertions on the interpretation<strong>of</strong> its 9th chapter and on the date when Daniel was written.The important divergences between the two basic versions asrepresented in the LXX and Theodotion do not permit us to draw anydefinitive conclusions regarding the text. 2727 The Seventy Weeks <strong>of</strong> Dan 9: an Exegetical Study, page 1, by Jacques Doukhan (Seminaire Adventiste duSaleve Collonges-sous-Saleve, France, 1979)13

EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF DANIEL 9Very early Christian beliefThe NT Gospel writers illustrate the Christians‘ eschatological application. They expected animminent return <strong>of</strong> their Leader, so when they saw the city <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans,they applied Daniel‘s predictions to that destruction. Luke was influenced by the contemporaryJewish understanding <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s prediction.The precipitating crisis that ignited eschatological expectation was theemperor Caligula‘s attempt to erect a statue <strong>of</strong> himself in theJerusalem temple – for the Jewish apocalyticist a sure sign <strong>of</strong> theimminent end. In the process <strong>of</strong> reorienting this material for a post-70perspective, the evangelist [Mark] has imbued it with a differentunderstanding. Although the sacrilege against the temple stillrepresents one <strong>of</strong> several critical stages in the eschatological plan, thedestruction <strong>of</strong> the temple is for Mark already a thing <strong>of</strong> the past, andhence no longer an immediate prelude to the parousia. Indeed, thediscourse concludes with an explicit warning against exactprognostications (13:32). Luke takes this process one step farther. Inplace <strong>of</strong> Mark‘s vivid apocalyptic imagery <strong>of</strong> a ‗desolating sacrilege‘,Luke 21:9 substitutes a factual and retrospective account <strong>of</strong>‗Jerusalem surrounded by armies‘, its inhabitants ‗fallen by the edge<strong>of</strong> the sword‘ – for Luke, events already past. 28The early churches believed that Daniel‘s prophecy was speaking <strong>of</strong> events that lay in their immediatefuture. Failure <strong>of</strong> their expectations resulted in reinterpretations.The specifically ‗Christian‘ interpretation, which found the terminus<strong>of</strong> the Weeks in the advent <strong>of</strong> Jesus Christ, only slowly made its way;it is not found at all in the New Testament, it is not made use <strong>of</strong> at allin Justin Martyr‘s [103-165 CE] Apologies, and outside <strong>of</strong> a passingallusion in [the Epistle <strong>of</strong>] Barnabas, ... we have to come to theFathers at the end <strong>of</strong> the 2nd cent[ury], to obtain this exegesis. 29A deeply held belief in early Christian apocalypticism understood theeschatological 70th week as the 70 years <strong>of</strong> the church betweenChrist‘s ascension and his expected return. This expectation, whichevidently influenced the dating <strong>of</strong> the close <strong>of</strong> the apostolic period inaround the year 100, did receive partial confirmation from the eventsoccurring in Judea in the year 70. But the failure <strong>of</strong> the prophecy fullyto be consummated required constant reinterpretation <strong>of</strong> the pertinentpassages. Vestiges <strong>of</strong> the tradition survive into the fourth century,now all but purged <strong>of</strong> their future eschatological content. 30The first attested Christian commentary on Daniel 9Little evidence exists that shows the early church had much interest in Daniel‘s prophecy <strong>of</strong> 70―sevens‖.The first two centuries witnessed comparatively little attestedChristian interest in the vision <strong>of</strong> 70 weeks. 3128 The Apocalyptic Survey <strong>of</strong> History Adapted by Christians: Daniel‟s Prophecy <strong>of</strong> 70 Weeks, by William Adler,in ―The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity‖, pages 217-218, edited by James C. VanderKam andWilliam Adler29 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on THE BOOK OF DANIEL, page 398, by James Montgomery30 Adler, page 21931 Adler, page 21714

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9The earliest known Christian commentary on Daniel 9 appeared at the turn <strong>of</strong> the 3rd century.During the reign <strong>of</strong> the Emperor Septimius Severus, [emperor from193 to 211 CE] a certain Judas, otherwise unknown, composed achronicle in the form <strong>of</strong> a commentary on Dan 9:24-27. ... Judas‘chronicle marks the first attested case in which Daniel‘s apocalypse<strong>of</strong> 70 weeks underpinned a Christian chronicle. 32The first application <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 to Jesus ChristThe first application <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 to Jesus Christ was made by Julius Africanus, after Judas‘ chronicle.Julius Africanus (ca. 160-240) claimed to find in Daniel‘s apocalypticvision an unambiguous foreshadowing <strong>of</strong> Christ‘s advent. 33Until then and for some time following, Daniel 9 had been interpreted eschatologically, saying that itpointed forwards to the events surrounding the Last Days. This 3rd century interpretation byAfricanus thus represented a complete reversal in the interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9.What is most notable about Africanus‘ exposition <strong>of</strong> these verses isthat although his chronicle was predicated on millennialist principles,he gives scant attention to the future eschatological dimension <strong>of</strong> thevision. ...The interpretation that Africanus prefers and to which he devotes themost analysis is to find the fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the passage entirely in theperson <strong>of</strong> Christ. Even apart from chronology, the contents <strong>of</strong>Daniel‘s promise alone, he says, are sufficient to establish its selfevidentmessianic significance. 34Flourish <strong>of</strong> interest in the 3rd and 4th centuriesThus for centuries following the life and ministry <strong>of</strong> their leader Jesus Christ, the Christians made noapplication <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 to him. Indeed, the Christians‘ interest arose after Porphyry had applied theprophecy to the period <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes, and when their own apocalyptic reinterpretations hadonly produced failures that resulted in disappointments.The real floruit 35 <strong>of</strong> interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 does not occur until thethird and fourth centuries, when eschatological fervor in the earlyChurch was already waning. As a result, Eusebius and the otherChristian historians who increasingly dominated the discussion <strong>of</strong>these verses tended to eschew the future promises <strong>of</strong> the vision infavor <strong>of</strong> a more retrospective messianic understanding. ... Daniel‘svision, a classic example <strong>of</strong> the apocalyptic historical survey,underwent continuous adaptation and reinterpretation in Jewish andChristian exegesis and historiography. 36Even when they applied Daniel 9 historically, they did not always apply it to Jesus Christ.In the third and the fourth centuries the ... resultant interpretations, toonumerous to describe here, were so contradictory. 37During the third and fourth centuries <strong>of</strong> the Christian Era, the interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 moved fromeschatological to historical, from matters <strong>of</strong> the future to events <strong>of</strong> the past. Instead <strong>of</strong> the prophecy32 Adler, page 20133 Adler, pages 201-20234 Adler, page 22235 ―flourish‖36 Adler, page 20237 Adler, page 21915

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9providing comfort and support through its descriptions <strong>of</strong> events that lay ahead, it became interpretedas describing historical events that had been completed.It is clear from the history <strong>of</strong> Jewish and Christian interpretation <strong>of</strong>Daniel 9 that part <strong>of</strong> its psychological impact was in promising someimmediate resolution <strong>of</strong> and hence emotional relief from a currentcrisis. But once it was established that the outcome <strong>of</strong> the prophecywas known and realized in the epochal events <strong>of</strong> the first centuries, itsvalue as consolation in a current crisis was blunted.This change in attitude lay behind a gradual change in Christianexegesis from the beginning <strong>of</strong> the third century. 38USE OF THEODOTION‟S TRANSLATIONTheodotion (died about 200 CE) was a Jewish scholar who reputedly translated the Hebrew Bible intoGreek in about 150 CE. 39 His translation was so widely copied in the early Christian church that itsversion <strong>of</strong> the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel virtually superseded the Septuagint‘s version. In his preface to Daniel,written in 407 CE, Jerome recorded that Christians had rejected the Septuagint‘s version <strong>of</strong> that book.Early Church FathersTheodotion‘s translation, the one almost universally used in theGreek-speaking Church, encouraged a rather different understanding.... In blurring the chronological demarcation between the first sevenweeks and the ensuing 62 weeks, his translation enabled the sevenweeks <strong>of</strong> v25 to be construed together with the subsequent 62. Theimpact <strong>of</strong> this rendering on Christian exegesis was pr<strong>of</strong>ound. ... As aresult, Christian interpreters only rarely saw the implications <strong>of</strong>sharply distinguishing, as the Hebrew text did, between the twoperiods. 40The Theodotionic version <strong>of</strong> Daniel that came to be favored in theearly Church partly contributed to the increasing popularity <strong>of</strong> theretrospective messianic/historical treatment <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9. 41Clem[ent], ... Tert[ullian], ... Hipp[olytis], Julianus Africanus, ...Origen, ... Eus[ebius]. ... Tert[ullian] and Origen, while pursuingchronological interpretations bearing upon the Advent, continue t<strong>of</strong>ind prophesied the destruction <strong>of</strong> the Jewish state. ...From the beginning, the masters disagreed, as they have done eversince. For example, the term[inus] a quo 42 was found by Clem[ent] inyear 2 <strong>of</strong> Cyrus; by Hipp[olytus], in year 1 <strong>of</strong> Darius the Mede; inAfricanus in year 20 <strong>of</strong> Artaxerxes; by Eusebius acc[ording] to onereckoning in year 6 <strong>of</strong> Darius Hystaspis. The climax <strong>of</strong> the Weeks isgenerally found in Christ‘s death, in which there was the cancellation<strong>of</strong> the Jewish ritual, but with a balance <strong>of</strong> 3½ years left over which istreated most vaguely; it is <strong>of</strong>ten regarded as representing the perioddown to the destruction <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem, or, after ancient precedent, it isunderstood as <strong>of</strong> the era <strong>of</strong> Antichrist, or with Polychronius <strong>of</strong> theteaching <strong>of</strong> the Apostles. 4338 Adler, page 22139 Adler, footnote, page 206 - The designation ‗Theodotion‘ is a somewhat misleading term that conceals thecomplexity <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> this version; ‗Theodotionic‘ readings are attested before Theodotion.40 Adler, page 22341 Adler, page 21842 ―starting point‖43 Montgomery, page 39816

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9The following Fathers <strong>of</strong> the Christian Church are listed chronologically.IRENÆUS (C 115 – C 202 CE)Irenæus wrote his Against Heresies about 175-185 CE.Irenæus inherits the apocalyptic interpretation <strong>of</strong> the New Testament;[Dan. 9:17] with its 3½ years, is a prophecy <strong>of</strong> the Antichrist; herelates with it Paul‘s prospect <strong>of</strong> the Antichrist in 2 Thess. 2:3f, andthe Antichrist is to take up his abode in Jerusalem.So far then there is no chronological calculation <strong>of</strong> the advent <strong>of</strong>Christ from the 70 Weeks. 44CLEMENT (C 150 - 215 CE)Clement separated apart the 7 ―sevens‖ <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s prophecy from its 62 ―sevens‖. This meant that heidentified the ―anointed one‖ who came at the end <strong>of</strong> the 7 ―sevens‖ as a separate figure from the onewho came at the end <strong>of</strong> the 62 ―sevens‖.Clement cites the passage to prove a familiar, but non-apocalypticarticle <strong>of</strong> Christian polemic: the newness <strong>of</strong> the Greeks. 45Clement‘s original chronology ... inaugurates a new stage in Christianexegesis <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9. If Clement held out some eschatological hopefor the future completion <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks, he says nothing here aboutit. His orientation to the passage is strictly historical. ... He is the firstto posit what becomes conventional in later interpretations: apresumed hiatus between the first 69 weeks, and the final week. 46Clement is concerned not with messianic or eschatological matters,but rather with a commonplace <strong>of</strong> Christian apologetic writing:chronological pro<strong>of</strong> for the antiquity <strong>of</strong> the Jews and the late andderivative character <strong>of</strong> Greek civilization. ...As the terminus ad quem 47 <strong>of</strong> the first seven heptads <strong>of</strong> the prophecy,Clement ... asserts that the fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the 49 years coincided withthe rebuilding <strong>of</strong> the temple. ... The 49 years <strong>of</strong> the prophecyrepresent for (Clement) the period from Cyrus‘ restoration <strong>of</strong> the Jewsup to the sixth year <strong>of</strong> Darius‘ reign.The terminus ad quem <strong>of</strong> the 62 weeks <strong>of</strong> ‗calm‘ is the coming <strong>of</strong>Christ in the flesh, followed by the final week, encompassing Nero‘serection <strong>of</strong> an ‗abomination‘ in Jerusalem and Vespasian‘sdestruction <strong>of</strong> the temple. ...Perhaps most significant is his interpretation <strong>of</strong> the ‗messianic‘content <strong>of</strong> the vision. Like most Christian commentators, Clementunderstands the ‗holy <strong>of</strong> holies‘ <strong>of</strong> v24 as foreshadowing Christ.However, he makes the beginning <strong>of</strong> the reign <strong>of</strong> the ‗anointed one, aprince‘ contemporary with the rebuilding <strong>of</strong> the temple after sevenweeks. After this ‗all <strong>of</strong> Judea was at peace, and free from warfare‘for 62 weeks.In casting the ς ς [anointed leader] <strong>of</strong> Dan 9:25 as afigure distinct from the anointed one expected after the ensuing 6244 Montgomery, page 39845 Adler, page 22146 Adler, page 22247 ―end point‖17

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9weeks, Clement‘s interpretation <strong>of</strong> v25 presupposes the Masoreticsyntax <strong>of</strong> the verse.‖ 48HIPPOLYTUS (C 170 – 236 CE)Hippolytus separated the three periods <strong>of</strong> ―sevens‖. He did not consider any <strong>of</strong> the periods <strong>of</strong> ―sevens‖as continuous.Hippolytus, like Clement before him, strictly divided 49 the first sevenweeks from the following 62 ... As Hippolytus recognizes, thischronology required a non-messianic identification <strong>of</strong> the ςς [anointed leader] <strong>of</strong> v25. ‗Until the anointed one, theprince‘, Hippolytus writes, ‗shall be seven weeks, which makes 49years. ...Now <strong>of</strong> what ―anointed one‖ does he speak, other than Jeshua son <strong>of</strong>Jozadak, who returned with his people, and in the 70th year with therebuilding <strong>of</strong> the temple brought an <strong>of</strong>fering according to the Law?‘...Hippolytus then attempts to Christianize the ς ς[anointed leader] by casting Jeshua as a prefigurement <strong>of</strong> Jesus, theperfect Messiah and high priest. 50Hippolytus envisaged the final ―seven‖ as referring to events that would take place in the future.Another popular compromise position was to defer the finaleschatological week to some time in the future. ... When Daniel‗spoke <strong>of</strong> the one week‘, Hippolytus writes, ‗he was referring to thelast week at the culmination <strong>of</strong> the whole universe that will come inthe end times‘. ...‗In that week, Elijah and Enoch will appear, and in the middle <strong>of</strong> theweek, there will appear the ―abomination <strong>of</strong> the desolation‖, theAntichrist who proclaims destruction to the universe. With his arrival,<strong>of</strong>fering and oblation will be taken away, which is now <strong>of</strong>feredeverywhere by the nations to God.‘ 51ORIGEN (185 – 254 CE)Origen said that Daniel‘s predicted person was Herod, certainly not Christ as some were saying.In [Origen‘s] Commentary on Matthew, he proposes that the heptads<strong>of</strong> the prophecy should be taken as units <strong>of</strong> 70 years each and that itschronology encompassed the 4900 years from the creation <strong>of</strong> Adamup until the end <strong>of</strong> the first century and the close <strong>of</strong> the apostolicperiod. 52 ...Origen acknowledges that some interpreters <strong>of</strong> Dan 9:26 identifiedthe ‗coming prince‘ with Christ. But if Christ had been meant, Danielwould certainly have used the appropriate messianic title to refer tohim. The figure should instead be identified either as Herod or asAgrippa. 5348 Adler, pages 224-22549 ―separated‖50 Adler, page 22651 Adler, page 22052 Adler, page 21953 Adler, page 23518

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9EUSEBIUS (C 263 – C 339 CE)Eusebius <strong>of</strong>fered several contrasting interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s vision.Wide differencesFor Eusebius, the promise <strong>of</strong> the prophecy was entirely realized in theperson <strong>of</strong> Christ. ... He assigns the first half <strong>of</strong> this week to the 3 1/2years <strong>of</strong> Christ‘s ministry. The second half embraces the 3 1/2 (!)years <strong>of</strong> Christ‘s post-resurrection appearances to the disciples, duringwhich time he ‗confirmed the covenant with the many‘. (cf. Dan9:27). ...Up until Christ‘s death, both the Temple and the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies werepresided over by ‗some divine presence‘. But from the moment thatthe curtain <strong>of</strong> the temple was torn, the sacrifice and libation weretaken away and the temple became a pr<strong>of</strong>ane place, stripped <strong>of</strong> itsatoning power. ...Eusebius ... seriously entertains the possibility, for example, that thewords ‗to anoint the most Holy‘ might be connected with the Jewishhigh priest. ... Eusebius allows that, according to ‗another meaning orinterpretation‘, ‗the anointed one, the governor‘ ( ς ς- anointed leader) in v25 bears a more probable connection with thepost-exilic Jewish high priesthood. The ς ς(anointed leader) refers not merely to Jeshua, but rather to the entiresuccession <strong>of</strong> post-exilic Jewish high priests. 54According to Eusebius‘ second ‗theory‘, the ‗going forth <strong>of</strong> the word‘commences with Cyrus‘ restoration <strong>of</strong> the Jews in the first year <strong>of</strong> hisreign. ... The event that signals the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the next 62 weeks isthe death <strong>of</strong> the high priest Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE). 55[Eusebuis‘] ‗third theory‘ extended the 69 weeks up to the accession<strong>of</strong> Herod and Augustus. ... The critical incident in the fulfilment <strong>of</strong>the 69 weeks occurred when Herod, appointed by Augustus as ruler<strong>of</strong> Judea, abrogated the genealogical high priesthood and ‗conferredthe <strong>of</strong>fice ... on obscure and unknown men‘. ... Like Eusebius‘ second‗theory‘, the controlling exegetical principle <strong>of</strong> this explanation wasnot messianic, but sacerdotal 56 . 57Eusebius allows that the ‗people <strong>of</strong> the governor who comes‘ mayrefer by extension to the Roman general and his camps. But in linewith his overall interpretation <strong>of</strong> 9:25-26a, he prefers to identify the‗coming prince‘ with Herod and the rulers <strong>of</strong> foreign stock whosucceeded him. 58Rather that Daniel‘s prophecy providing evidence <strong>of</strong> divine authorship, it provides evidence <strong>of</strong> a widerange <strong>of</strong> incompatible interpretations, <strong>of</strong> which the <strong>GM</strong> book provides only one version.It is to be observed, however, that the early Christian exegesis, that <strong>of</strong>the Greek Fathers and <strong>of</strong> the early Latins, ... in [Daniel 9] v.26 madethis crucial passage refer to the abolition <strong>of</strong> the Jewish cult, not toChrist‘s death.54 Adler, page 22855 Adler, page 22956 Sacerdotal: <strong>of</strong> or relating to priests or a priesthood57 Adler, page 231-23258 Adler, page 23519

Early Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9While the tendency induced by the Christian chronographers to findthe exact terminus <strong>of</strong> the 70 Weeks in the Advent became universalamong Christian exegetes, we have to note the immense variety as todetails among the Fathers. ... Some <strong>of</strong> the Fathers honestly enoughpresent more than one calculation <strong>of</strong> the times, so Africanus threedifferent theories, Eusebius possibly four. Variant opinions as to theterm[inus] a quo have been noticed above. And there was widestcontradiction in other details. 59Summary <strong>of</strong> the early Christian interpretationFor the history <strong>of</strong> the elder (pre-Reformation) interpretation <strong>of</strong> the 70Weeks we can mark out several distinct progressive phases:(1) The interpretation as <strong>of</strong> a prophecy <strong>of</strong> the Maccabæan distress, the‗contemporary‘ interpretation;(2) the apocalyptic interpretation, as in the Gospels, Paul;(3) the application to the destruction <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem—so by Josephus,and since him the regnant Jewish interpretation;(4) the ultimate ‗Christian‘ exegesis which found in the passage moreor less explicit, chronologically verifiable predictions <strong>of</strong> the advent <strong>of</strong>Christ. This last exegesis is again variously crossed with the otherearlier strains <strong>of</strong> interpretation. And(5) there is the rationalizing interpretation, instituted by Porphyry andnow largely accepted. 60To sum up: The history <strong>of</strong> the exegesis <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks is the DismalSwamp <strong>of</strong> OT criticsm. The difficulties that beset any ‗rationalistic‘treatment <strong>of</strong> the figures are great enough, for the critics on this side <strong>of</strong>the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness<strong>of</strong> assumptions and theories in the efforts to obtain an exactchronology fitting into the history <strong>of</strong> Salvation, after these 2,000years <strong>of</strong> infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude anyuse <strong>of</strong> the 70 Weeks for the determination <strong>of</strong> a definite propheticchronology. ...The early Jewish and Christian exegesis came to interpret that datumeschatologically and found it fulfilled in the fall <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem; onlyslowly did the theme <strong>of</strong> a prophecy <strong>of</strong> the Advent <strong>of</strong> Christ impressitself upon the Church, along with the survival, however, <strong>of</strong> the otherearlier themes.The early Church rested no claims upon the alleged prophecy, butrather remarkably ignored it in a theological atmosphere surchargedwith Messianism. The great Catholic chronographers naturallyattacked the subject with scientific zeal, but their efforts as well asthose <strong>of</strong> all subsequent chronologers (including the great Scaliger andSir Isaac Newton) have failed. 61The fact that there are so many incompatible interpretations <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 casts a serious doubt on theclaim that it demonstrates that the Bible is capable <strong>of</strong> making a prophecy that came to pass. If it cameto pass, which one is the fulfilment? If there are so many claimed fulfilments, how can <strong>GM</strong> say thatDaniel 9 shows the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies?59 Montgomery, page 39960 Montgomery, page 39461 Montgomery, pages 400-40120

THE INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9 BY <strong>GM</strong>For its example <strong>of</strong> prophetic fulfilment, <strong>GM</strong> calls on Daniel 9, saying that its predictions werefulfilled in the ministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus Christ during the early years <strong>of</strong> the first century CE.<strong>GM</strong>, page 130Since the Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel was written centuries before Jesus‘ ministry, if <strong>GM</strong> provides unassailableevidence that the prophecy applied to the timing <strong>of</strong> his ministry, this would demonstrate the predictiveability <strong>of</strong> this chapter <strong>of</strong> the Bible.Outline <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>‟s interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel‟s “70 weeks”A period <strong>of</strong> 490 years was decreed upon Daniel‘s people and his holy city.This was a prophecy <strong>of</strong> the coming <strong>of</strong> the ―anointed one‖, a prince, the Messiah.The period started with the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem that was issued inArtaxerxes‘ 20th year, 455 BCE.By the end <strong>of</strong> the ―seven weeks‖ (49 years) much <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem‘s glory had been restored.The ―seven weeks [<strong>of</strong> years]‖ would immediately be followed by a period <strong>of</strong> ―sixty-twoweeks [<strong>of</strong> years]‖.The combined total <strong>of</strong> ―sixty-nine weeks‖ (483 years) ended in 29 CE when Jesus wasbaptised by John, making Jesus the ―Anointed One‖.Jesus entered into a firm covenant with the Jews for ―one week‖ (7 years).Jesus was put to death in the middle <strong>of</strong> that final week, after three and a half years <strong>of</strong>preaching.The ―70 weeks <strong>of</strong> years‖ ended in 36 CE when Peter preached to a Gentile, Cornelius.People <strong>of</strong> the other prince destroyed Jerusalem and its sanctuary in 70 CE.Commentators agree that the prophecy <strong>of</strong> the ―70 sevens‖ at Daniel 9:24-27 is the most used andabused Old Testament prophecy. A search <strong>of</strong> the Internet provides innumerable incompatibleinterpretations exhibiting a wide range <strong>of</strong> fulfilments. This multiplicity <strong>of</strong> incompatible explanationsis not new; it has been evident ever since the prophecy appeared.<strong>GM</strong>‘s reasoning is patterned after the historical method proposed by the 2nd and 3rd century ChurchFather, Africanus.21

The key words at Daniel 9:24-27, in sequence, are:KEY WORDS AT DANIEL 9:24-27Weeks/sevens/heptads (transliterated Hebrew: v`BW^U );Decree/command ( D`B`r );Restore ( vWB );Rebuild ( B*/> );Messiah/ Anointed One (

Key words at Daniel 9:24-27NIV rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9:24-27 78 with the key words highlightedSeventy ‗sevens‘ 79 are decreed for your people and your holy city t<strong>of</strong>inish 80 transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, tobring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy andto anoint the most holy. 81Know and understand this: From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree 82 to restoreand rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, 83 the ruler, comes,there will be seven ‗sevens,‘ and sixty-two ‗sevens.‘ It will be rebuiltwith streets and a trench, but in times <strong>of</strong> trouble.After the sixty-two ‗sevens,‘ the Anointed One will be cut <strong>of</strong>f andwill have nothing. 84 The people <strong>of</strong> the ruler who will come willdestroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood:War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‗seven.‘ 85 In themiddle <strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ 86 he will put an end to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering.And on a wing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will set up an abomination that causesdesolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him 87 . 8877 Possibly, ―the one causing desolation.‖ Heb., sho-mem‟, a participle developed from the po΄Uel form <strong>of</strong>participle, mesho-mem‟, ―the one causing desolation,‖ found earlier in this vs. See 8:13 ftn.78 Footnotes are as provided by the NIV79 Or ‗weeks‘; also verses 25 and 2680 Or restrain81 Or Most Holy Place; or most holy One82 Or word83 Or an anointed One; also in verse 2684 Or <strong>of</strong>f and will have no one; or <strong>of</strong>f, but not for himself85 Or ‗week‘86 Or ‗week‘87 Or it88 Or And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle <strong>of</strong> the abominable [temple], until the end thatis decreed is poured out on the desolated [city]23

Key words at Daniel 9:24-27Application <strong>of</strong> the key words by <strong>GM</strong>The following shows how <strong>GM</strong> applies these key words:24

Key words at Daniel 9:24-2725

Daniel 9:24 – 27Daniel’s people and city were given a probation period <strong>of</strong> 70 ‘sevens’.The periods are ‘sevens’, not ‘weeks’.Seventy „sevens‟ are decreed for your people and your holy city t<strong>of</strong>inish transgression,put an end to sin,atone for wickedness,bring in everlasting righteousness,seal up vision and prophecy andanoint the most holy.(Daniel 9:24, NIV)These outcomes are demanded <strong>of</strong>Daniel’s people and <strong>of</strong> his city.Know and understand this:From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untilthe 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 <strong>of</strong> trouble.(Daniel 9:25, NIV)These ‘sevens’ start when the word is issued thatJerusalem would be “restored” as well as “rebuilt”.An anointed ruler would arise at the end <strong>of</strong> seven“sevens” and 62 “sevens”After the sixty-two „sevens,‟ the Anointed One will be cut <strong>of</strong>f andwill have nothing.(Daniel 9:26a, NIV)The anointed ruler will be cut <strong>of</strong>fwith nothing after the 62 “sevens”The people <strong>of</strong> the ruler who will come will destroy the city and thesanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until theend, and desolations have been decreed.The ruler’s people will come todestroy Daniel’s city and templeHe will confirm a covenant with many for one „seven.‟In the middle <strong>of</strong> the „seven‟ he will put an end to sacrifice and<strong>of</strong>fering.And on a wing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will set up an abomination thatcauses desolation,until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.(Dan. 9:26b-27, NIV)The ruler will• Make a covenant for one “seven”.• Put an end to sacrifice and to <strong>of</strong>fering inthe middle <strong>of</strong> one “seven”.• Set up an abomination on a wing <strong>of</strong> thetemple.• Until his decreed end is poured out on him.Key words at Daniel 9:24-2726

KEY WORD: “WEEKS/SEVENS/HEPTADS”(Transliterated Hebrew: v`BW^U )<strong>GM</strong> claims that the ―seventy ‗weeks‘‖ at Daniel 9:24 means a period lasting exactly 490 years wasdecreed upon Daniel‘s people and his holy city.<strong>GM</strong>, page 130If <strong>GM</strong> is able to prove that this prophecy definitely foretells the timing <strong>of</strong> the arrival <strong>of</strong> Jesus, then ithas provided evidence <strong>of</strong> one fulfilled Hebrew Scripture prophecy.Amplified BibleAt page 130, <strong>GM</strong> provides the rendering <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 by The Amplified Bible:Seventy weeks [<strong>of</strong> years, or four hundred and ninety years] aredecreed upon your people and upon your city.<strong>GM</strong> provides this footnote on its use <strong>of</strong> The Amplified Bible at Daniel 9:In this translation, the words in brackets have been added by thetranslator to clarify the meaning. 89The Amplified Bible explains that the square brackets, such at Daniel 9:24, provides additionalcommentary that has been inserted into the text:BRACKETS: contain justified clarifying words or comments notactually expressed in the immediate original text. 90The Amplified Bible is largely the work <strong>of</strong> Mrs Frances Siewert (1881-1967). Her subjectiveopinionated interpretation inserted into The Amplified Bible at Daniel 9:24 suits <strong>GM</strong>‘s intendedconclusion.Mrs Siewert laid the foundation for the translation and her project was taken on by The LockmanFoundation, a Californian non-pr<strong>of</strong>it foundation <strong>of</strong> Christian men and women. Mrs Siewert becamethe <strong>of</strong>ficial Research Secretary <strong>of</strong> The Amplified Bible.89 <strong>GM</strong>, page 13090 Emphasis supplied.27

KEY WORD: “DECREE/COMMAND”(Transliterated Hebrew: D`B`r )<strong>GM</strong>, page 130The Biblical citation at <strong>GM</strong> is from The Amplified Bible. The equivalent passage in the NWT reads:From the going forth <strong>of</strong> [the] word to restore and to rebuildJerusalem.Presumably the text from Mrs Siewert‘s version was preferred because she says the ―commandment‖went forth while the NWT does not – it correctly renders it as the ―word‖ going forth. This means aword that would be spoken, which did not require a formally written commandment issued by aheathen king.The Hebrew words D`B~r (verb) and D`B`r (noun) do not mean not ―command‖. They refer to thespoken ―word‖. The Hebrew words together appear some 2500 times in the Hebrew Scripture. Ofthese appearances, they are translated as: word (339 times); words (226); said (197), speak (170);spoken (99); spoke (85); say (76); and so on. D`B`r is rendered as ―decree‖ on only two occasions 91 ,while D`B~r is so rendered just once 92 .The verb D`B~r (―say, speak‖) and the noun D`B`r (―word‖) are bothused hundreds <strong>of</strong> times for the human and the divine activity <strong>of</strong>speaking. The verb occurs in speaking in dialog within a narrative. Itis also used in the formula found numerous times in the prophets,―The Lord has spoken‖. 93When Scripture says, ―the word (D`B`r) <strong>of</strong> the Lord‖, this brings with it the sense <strong>of</strong> supreme andunassailable authority <strong>of</strong> the highest degree. When the Lord speaks, whatever he declares, it is hiscommand, his decree, his proclamation. The words, commands, declarations, decrees, andproclamations <strong>of</strong> man are subservient to and consequential to anything that comes from the Lord.Not only is Daniel‘s prayer interrupted by an angelic ―word‖ which―goes forth‖ (axy rbD y*x*a D`b*r) at the same time Danielresponds to his reading <strong>of</strong> the ―word‖ <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah (9:22–23), butmore importantly, the starting point <strong>of</strong> the “seventy weeks” isidentified similarly, as “the going forth <strong>of</strong> a word (dbD axm mox*aD*b*r) to restore and to build Jerusalem” (9:25).Inasmuch as the term used in each <strong>of</strong> these references is thecommon dbD (D`B`r “word”) and not hwxm (m!x=w*h―command‖), as many English versions imply, there is no need toread into the passage the meaning <strong>of</strong> a ―royal decree‖ issued by aPersian ruler. 9491 Esther 1:19; Dan. 9:25; The word translated as ―are decreed‖ at Daniel 9:24 is j`T^:, while at Daniel 9:26,27 the word rendered as ―decreed‖ is j`r^x.92 Jer. 51:1293 Mounce‟s Complete Expository Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Old and New Testament Words, William D. Mounce,, pp. 801-802, article, ―Word‖94 Spiritual Failure, Postponement And Daniel 9, Ronald W. Pierce, pp. 212-213. (Available at:http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/daniel_pierce.pdf . - accessed October 2010)29

Key word: ―decree/command‖Daniel 9:25 – A “word spoken” ( D`B~r )– not a heathen “decree”The verb D`B~r (“say, speak”) and the noun D`B`r (“word”) are both usedhundreds <strong>of</strong> times for the human and the divine activity <strong>of</strong> speaking. Theverb occurs in speaking in dialog within a narrative. It is also used in theformula found numerous times in the prophets, “The Lord has spoken”.(Mounce, pp. 801-802, art., “Word”)Not only is Daniel‟s prayer interrupted by an angelic “word” which “goesforth” ( axy rbD y*x*a D`b*r ) at the same time Daniel responds to hisreading <strong>of</strong> the “word” <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah (9:22–23), but more importantly, thestarting point <strong>of</strong> the “seventy weeks” is identified similarly, as “thegoing forth <strong>of</strong> a word ( dbD axm mox*a D*b*r) to restore and tobuild Jerusalem” (9:25).Inasmuch as the term used in each <strong>of</strong> these references is the commondbD ( D`B`r “word”) and not hwxm ( m!x=w*h “command” ), as manyEnglish versions imply, there is no need to read into the passage themeaning <strong>of</strong> a “royal decree” issued by a Persian ruler. (Pierce, pp. 212-213)D`B`r(the decree)vWB(to restore)B*/>(to rebuild)Know and understand this:From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decreeto restore and rebuild Jerusalem untilthe 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 <strong>of</strong> trouble.(Daniel 9:25, NIV)Translation as “decree” affected by desired associationThe common translation as ―decree‖ is a (non-literal) over-translationmotivated by the interpretation that seeks to associate it with thedecree <strong>of</strong> Artaxerxes.Contextually, we can see that the author most likely has a divineoracle from Yahweh in view. The phrase ―going forth <strong>of</strong> the word‖(mtsh dbr) in v. 25 is preceded in v. 23 by an identical expression ―aword went forth‖ (ytsh dbr) which refers to the interpretation <strong>of</strong>Jeremiah‘s 70 years given in v. 25-27, which the angel Gabriel30

Key word: ―decree/command‖delivers to Daniel. This is a divine ―word‖ that the angel brings downfrom heaven.It is also primarily an oral rather than a written word (as in a writtenproclamation), as the expression in its fuller form is ―going forth <strong>of</strong> aword from my/one‟s mouth‖ (cf. Isaiah 45:23, 55:11; cf. 48:3). Thereference <strong>of</strong> the word <strong>of</strong> Yahweh ―going forth‖ (ytsh) also occurs inIsaiah 2:3, Ezekiel 33:30, etc.The original oracle in Jeremiah concerning the seventy years issimilarly designated as a divine ―word‖ in v. 2, ―the word <strong>of</strong> Yahwehthat came to Jeremiah (dbr yhwh „shr hyh „l-yrmyhw)‖, a phrase thatis directly taken from Jeremiah (cf. Jeremiah 1:2, 4, 11, 13, 2:1,13:3, 8, 14:1, 16:1, 18:5, 24:4, 25:3, 28:12, 29:30, 32:6, 26, 33:1, 19,23, 34:12, etc.). This is probably the ―word to restore and rebuild‖referred to in v. 25. Notice the wording in Jeremiah 29:10: ―Whenseventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you andgraciously fulfill my word to restore (dbry l-hshyb) you back to thisplace‖. The ―word to restore and rebuild‖ (dbr l-hshyb wl-bnwt) inDaniel 9:25 is thus allusive <strong>of</strong> the seventy years prophecy inJeremiah, the very oracle that ch. 9 <strong>of</strong> Daniel is concerned with.The following chapter <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah continues the theme; v. 1introduces ―the word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh‖, v. 2promises that Yahweh will ―restore‖ (hshbtym) his people to theirland, v. 18 repeats the promise that Yahweh ―will restore‖ (shb) thefortunes <strong>of</strong> Judah and ―the city will be rebuilt‖ (nbnth `yr). Again in31:38-40, the ―word <strong>of</strong> Yahweh‖ promises that ―the city will berebuilt‖ (nbnth h-`yr). And finally in ch. 32, dated to the tenth year <strong>of</strong>Zedekiah when Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem, the ―wordthat came to Jeremiah from Yahweh‖ promises that ―I will restorethem (hshbytm) back to this place and let them live in safety‖ (v. 1,28-29, 37). 95When the Lord gave his ―word‖ through Jeremiah, its fulfilment was conditional, dependent upon thecontrition <strong>of</strong> his people for their sin and waywardness. It can be reasoned that the ―word‖ to proceedwith the restoration and rebuilding was thus given at the moment Daniel started to pray:Possible events when the word went forthSeveral alternative events are proposed as the one when the word was uttered to ―restore‖ and―rebuild‖ Jerusalem, with each commentator providing reasons for their position. The presence <strong>of</strong> thiswide diversity dilutes any argument that this prophecy was fulfilled in the way that Daniel 9 originallyintended.Often, the event commentators select is predetermined by the conclusion they have in view. Severalcommentators make no secret <strong>of</strong> this by starting from their selected date <strong>of</strong> a selected event in the lifeand ministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus. Proposed starting events include:The word given by Yahweh through Jeremiah that he would restore and rebuild.One <strong>of</strong> the several decrees, letters and instructions given by several heathen kings, includingCyrus, who was named the anointed.Since Yahweh gave his promise that Jerusalem would be ―restored‖ and ―rebuilt‖, the authorisationsby heathen kings were possible only because the God had previously given his commitment.95 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/185729/1/Re-Gabriels-answer-at-Daniel-9, post by―Leolaia‖ (accessed October 2010)31

Key word: ―decree/command‖However, a further and perhaps more convincing ―going forth <strong>of</strong> the word‖ is the instruction fromheaven made at the start <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s prayer and announced through Gabriel:In the first year <strong>of</strong> [Darius‘] reign, I, Daniel, understood from theScriptures, according to the word <strong>of</strong> the LORD given to Jeremiah theprophet, that the desolation <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem would last seventy years.So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer andpetition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the LORDmy God and confessed:O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant <strong>of</strong> lovewith all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned anddone wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turnedaway from your commands and laws. …Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions <strong>of</strong> your servant.For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary.Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation <strong>of</strong>the city that bears your Name.We do not make requests <strong>of</strong> you because we are righteous, butbecause <strong>of</strong> your great mercy.O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive!O Lord, hear and act!For your sake, O my God, do not delay,because your city and your people bear your Name.‖ …While I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earliervision, came to me in swift flight. He instructed me and said to me,―Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding.As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I havecome to tell you 96 .The event selected by <strong>GM</strong>Of the various options, the author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> selects one, without explanation. Perhaps the prior decisionin <strong>GM</strong> that the prophecy at Daniel 9 found its fulfilment in Jesus biased the author‘s decision.<strong>GM</strong>, page 131The selection <strong>of</strong> this event is driven by the predetermined outcome. Further, the date <strong>of</strong> 455 BCEproposed by <strong>GM</strong> for ―the twentieth year <strong>of</strong> Artaxerxes‖ is not universally accepted by Jews,archaeologists or other Christians.The looseness <strong>of</strong> the text, which has permitted the formulation <strong>of</strong> a myriad <strong>of</strong> interpretations, suggestsDaniel‘s concern is not with finding a specific date when the word was uttered by Yahweh that hisnation would be restored and rebuilt, but with the surety that he had given his pledge to do so.96 Daniel 9:2-5, 17-19, 21-2332

KEY WORD: “RESTORE”(Translated Hebrew: vWB )From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree [word] to restore (Hebrew: vWB) ...Jerusalem. 97The ―word‖ to restore Yahweh‘s people was spoken by God. Any instruction by a heathen king wasconsequential. The wording <strong>of</strong> Cyrus‘ decree as reported by Ezra misrepresents the actual words <strong>of</strong>Cyrus‘ edict.The spiritual dimension is fundamental to ―restoration‖, which results in Yahweh‘s people servinghim. Only God, and not a heathen ruler, could utter such a declaration.The basic sense <strong>of</strong> vWB is ―to turn, return, repent, go/come back.‖(1) vWB is <strong>of</strong>ten used in a physical sense for turning back to apoint <strong>of</strong> departure. ...(2) vWB is also used in several important theological senses.In the moral/spiritual realm vWB can describe both thehuman act <strong>of</strong> repentance. ...(3) Finally God can be the subject <strong>of</strong> the verb vWB. WhenGod‘s patience has run out, he promises impendingjudgment and warns, ―I have decided and will not turnback‖ (Jer. 4:28). ... Zechariah holds out God‘s promise,―Return to me and I will return to you‖ (Zech. 1:3). 98The restoration concerned both nations, Israel as well as Judah. The declarations by the heathenmonarchs only addressed the southern nation and its city <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem. Furthermore, their edicts onlyaddressed only the physical rebuilding. Only God has the ability and the authority to ―restore‖ thepeople to himself.The Lord’s decree to “restore” (vWB) as given through JeremiahTherefore this is what the LORD says: ―If you repent, I will restore(vWB) you that you may serve me. 99For I will restore (vWB) them to the land I gave their fore-fathers. 100―They will be taken to Babylon and there they will remain until theday I come for them,‖ declares the LORD. ―Then I will bring themback and restore (vWB) them to this place.‖ 101‗The days are coming,‘ declares the LORD, ‗when I will bring mypeople Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore (vWB) them tothe land I gave their forefathers to possess,‘ says the LORD.‖ 102This is what the LORD says: ―I will restore (vWB) the fortunes <strong>of</strong>Jacob‘s tents and have compassion on his dwellings; the city will berebuilt (B*/>) on her ruins (T@l), and the palace will stand in itsproper place.‖ 10397 Daniel 9:2598 Mounce‟s Complete Expository Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Old and New Testament Words, William D. Mounce, page 750,article ―Turn‖.99 Jer. 15:19100 Jer. 16:15101 Jer. 27:22102 Jer. 30:3103 Jer. 30:1833

Examples <strong>of</strong> the LORD‟s “word” to “restore” ( vWB ) his peopleThis is what the LORD says: “You say about thisplace, „It is a desolate (j*r@B) waste, without men oranimals.‟ “ Yet in the towns <strong>of</strong> Judah and the streets <strong>of</strong>Jerusalem that are deserted (v*m@m), inhabitedTherefore this is what the LORD says: “If you repent, Iwill restore ( vWB ) you that you may serve me”. (Jer.15:19)This is what the LORD says: “I will restore ( vWB ) thefortunes <strong>of</strong> Jacob‟s tents and have compassion on hisdwellings; the city will be rebuilt ( B*/> ) on herruins (T@l), and the palace will stand in its properplace.” (Jer. 30:18)For I will restore ( vWB ) them to the land I gave theirforefathers. (Jer. 16:15)Know and understand this:From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untildecreethe 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 <strong>of</strong> trouble.(Daniel 9:25, NIV)Key word: ―restore‖restore and rebuild(y*v~B) by neither men nor animals, there will beheard once more the sounds <strong>of</strong> joy and gladness, thevoices <strong>of</strong> bride and bridegroom, and the voices <strong>of</strong>those who bring thank <strong>of</strong>ferings to the house <strong>of</strong> theLORD, saying, “Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, forthe LORD is good; his love endures forever. For I willrestore ( vWB ) the fortunes <strong>of</strong> the land as they werebefore,” says the LORD. (Jer. 33:10-11)I have surely heard Ephraim‟s moaning: “Youdisciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have beendisciplined. Restore ( vWB ) me, and I will return,because you are the LORD my God.” (Jer. 31:18)“They will be taken to Babylon and there they willremain until the day I come for them,” declares theLORD. “Then I will bring them back and restore( vWB ) them to this place.” (Jer. 27:22)Fields will be bought for silver, and deeds will besigned, sealed and witnessed in the territory <strong>of</strong>Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem, in thetowns <strong>of</strong> Judah and in the towns <strong>of</strong> the hill country, <strong>of</strong>the western foothills and <strong>of</strong> the Negev, because I willrestore ( vWB ) their fortunes, declares the LORD.”(Jer. 32:44)„The days are coming,‟ declares the LORD, „when Iwill bring my people Israel and Judah back fromcaptivity and restore ( vWB ) them to the land I gavetheir forefathers to possess,‟ says the LORD.” (Jer.30:3)Have you not noticed that these people are saying,“The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose”?… This is what the LORD says: “… I will restore( vWB ) their fortunes and have compassion on them.”(Jer. 33:24-26)vWB(to restore)B*/>(to rebuild)D`B`r(the decree)34

Key word: ―restore‖I have surely heard Ephraim‘s moaning: ―You disciplined me like anunruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore (vWB) me, and I willreturn, because you are the LORD my God.‖ 104Fields will be bought for silver, and deeds will be signed, sealed andwitnessed in the territory <strong>of</strong> Benjamin, in the villages aroundJerusalem, in the towns <strong>of</strong> Judah and in the towns <strong>of</strong> the hill country,<strong>of</strong> the western foothills and <strong>of</strong> the Negev, because I will restore (vWB)their fortunes, declares the LORD.‖ 105This is what the LORD says: ―You say about this place, ‗It is adesolate (j*r@B) waste, without men or animals.‘ ― Yet in the towns<strong>of</strong> Judah and the streets <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem that are deserted (v*m@m),inhabited (y*v~B) by neither men nor animals, there will be heardonce more the sounds <strong>of</strong> joy and gladness, the voices <strong>of</strong> bride andbridegroom, and the voices <strong>of</strong> those who bring thank <strong>of</strong>ferings to thehouse <strong>of</strong> the LORD, saying, ―Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, forthe LORD is good; his love endures forever. For I will restore (vWB)the fortunes <strong>of</strong> the land as they were before,‖ says the LORD. 106Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ―The LORD hasrejected the two kingdoms he chose‖? … This is what the LORDsays: ―… I will restore (vWB) their fortunes and have compassion onthem.‖ 107Who else but Yahweh is able to make these assertions?104 Jer. 31:18105 Jer. 32:44106 Jer. 33:10-11107 Jer. 33:24-2635

KEY WORD: “REBUILD”(Transliterated Hebrew: B*/> )From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree (margin: word; Hebrew: D`B`r) to ...rebuild (B*/>) Jerusalem. 108Even while the city <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem was besieged and being pulled apart by the might <strong>of</strong> Babylon,Jeremiah foresaw that the Lord would rebuild the nation as before.I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild(B*/>) them as they were before. 109The immediate context shows that this rebuilding meant far more than physical bricks and timber; itwas founded on spiritual values:I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against meand will forgive all their sins <strong>of</strong> rebellion against me. Then this citywill bring me renown, joy, praise and honor before all nations onearth that hear <strong>of</strong> all the good things I do for it; and they will be inawe and will tremble at the abundant prosperity and peace I providefor it.‘ 110Scholars believe Jeremiah added the following to Psalm 69, originally written by David.Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and all that move in them,for God will save Zion and rebuild (B*/>) the cities <strong>of</strong> Judah. Thenpeople will settle there and possess it; the children <strong>of</strong> his servants willinherit it, and those who love his name will dwell there. 111Verse 13 indicates that it was written at the time <strong>of</strong> the Babylonian Captivity, with its reference to therebuilding <strong>of</strong> Zion. While in exile, the writer knew that the Lord will rebuild, as he had promised.For the LORD will rebuild (B*/>) Zion and appear in his glory. Hewill respond to the prayer <strong>of</strong> the destitute; he will not despise theirplea. 112The following verses from Isaiah were written during or following the Babylonian Captivity.I will raise up Cyrus 113 in my righteousness: I will make all his waysstraight. He will rebuild (B*/>) my city and set my exiles free, butnot for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.‖ 114Your people will rebuild (B*/>) the ancient ruins and will raise upthe age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer <strong>of</strong> Broken Walls,Restorer <strong>of</strong> Streets with Dwellings. 115Foreigners will rebuild (B*/>) your walls, and their kings will serveyou. Though in anger I struck you, in favor I will show youcompassion. 116They will rebuild (B*/>) the ancient ruins and restore (qWm) theplaces long devastated (v*m@m); they will renew (j*D~v) the ruinedcities that have been devastated (v*m@m) for generations. 117108 Daniel 9:25109 Jer. 33:7110 Jer. 33:8-9111 Psa. 69:34-36112 Psa. 102:16-17113 The Hebrew renders this with ―him‖.114 Isa. 45:13115 Isa. 58:12116 Isa. 60:1036

Examples <strong>of</strong> the LORD‟s “word” to “rebuild” ( B*/> ) his cityThe Lord‟s decree to “rebuild” ( B*/> ) as giventhrough JeremiahThe Lord‟s decree to “rebuild” ( B*/> ) as given through IsaiahI will raise up Cyrus [mg.: the Hebrew renders this with “him”] in my righteousness: Iwill make all his ways straight. He will rebuild ( B*/> ) my city and set my exilesfree, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” (Isa. 45:13)I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and willrebuild ( B*/> ) them as they were before. (Jer. 33:7)Your people will rebuild ( B*/> ) the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-oldfoundations; you will be called Repairer <strong>of</strong> Broken Walls, Restorer <strong>of</strong> Streets withDwellings. (Isa. 58:12)The Lord‟s decree to “rebuild” ( B*/> ) as given atPsalmsLet heaven and earth praise him, the seas and all that movein them, for God will save Zion and rebuild ( B*/> ) thecities <strong>of</strong> Judah. Then people will settle there and possess it;the children <strong>of</strong> his servants will inherit it, and those who lovehis name will dwell there. (Psa. 69:34-:36)Foreigners will rebuild ( B*/> ) your walls, and their kings will serve you. Though inanger I struck you, in favor I will show you compassion. (Isa. 60:10)They will rebuild ( B*/> ) the ancient ruins and restore (qWm) the places longdevastated (v*m@m); they will renew (j*D~v) the ruined cities that have beendevastated (v*m@m) for generations. (Isa. 61:4)For the LORD will rebuild ( B*/> ) Zion and appear in hisglory. He will respond to the prayer <strong>of</strong> the destitute; he willnot despise their plea. (Psa. 102:16-17)B*/>(to rebuild)D`B`r(the decree)Know and understand this:From the issuing <strong>of</strong> the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untildecreethe 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 <strong>of</strong> trouble.(Daniel 9:25, NIV)Key word: ―rebuild‖restore and rebuildvWB(to restore)117 Isa. 61:437

KEY WORD: “MESSIAH/ANOINTED ONE” – WHAT?(Transliterated Hebrew:

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – what?In the LXX, because <strong>of</strong> the connection with ―rubbing or smearingoil,‖ the term was associated with ―one who had been anointed, or setapart, for a special task.‖ In the Hebrew Bible, the ―anointed ones‖were the king and the high priest, occasionally a prophet. 121------The specific figure <strong>of</strong> the Messiah, as one who is anointed by God,Christos in Greek, runs far back in Jewish history. From early times,the Messiah was identified with kingship and a royal investituremarked by anointing with oil. ... Some <strong>of</strong> the Qumran scrolls also talk<strong>of</strong> two messiahs: one a king and one a priest. Messiahs were expectedto bring some form <strong>of</strong> political and military triumph. 122------What a Messiah must accomplish is formidable. He must helpoverthrow foreign authority, establish an independent Jewish state, bethe Davidic king and, with God‘s help, usher in an era <strong>of</strong> universalpeace, establishing the universal rule <strong>of</strong> God, the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> God. ...In Jewish terms, a Messiah is a leader anointed by God to act as anagent or political catalyst, to assist in bringing about God‘s rule. Mostmessianic expectations were that the Messiah would be human: hewould be born and he would die. He would not have a special birth,and, while a righteous individual, he would not be a divine being. Hewould have to be a political leader, as a descendant <strong>of</strong> David, whowould help establish the supremacy <strong>of</strong> Israel. ... Anyone living at thetime would be able to detect tremendous changes in the political andreligious structures <strong>of</strong> the world after the Messiah appeared. 123New Testament applicationsThe <strong>GM</strong> book claims this passage is referring to Jesus as the Messiah, the ―Anointed One‖. But Jesusnever received an ―anointing‖ with oil, either as King or as High Priest. While Jesus might havereceived an ―anointing‖ by God, it does not follow that this was the anointing that the writers <strong>of</strong>Daniel intended or anticipated.In the Gospels <strong>of</strong> Mark, Matthew, and Luke the title Christ occursmuch less <strong>of</strong>ten than might be expected. Jesus never openly claims tobe the Messiah. ... And when Peter declared him to be the Christ,Jesus‘ response was to charge his disciples to tell no one about him(Mark8.29f.; cf. Luke9.20f.). Matthew records that he first calledPeter blessed, because this knowledge could have come to him onlyby revelation from God himself (Matt. 16.13-20). It is difficult tounderstand how Mark and Luke could omit this part <strong>of</strong> the story ifthey knew it, or how they could have failed to know <strong>of</strong> it if Jesusreally did reply in this way. But as they stand, Jesus‘ words to Peterindicate that he himself had not yet given any indication even to hismost intimate disciples that he was in fact the Christ.Mark tells us that at his ‗trial‘ before the Sanhedrin Jesus franklyadmitted that he was the Christ (Mark 14.61f.), but according to bothMatthew and Luke he refused to give a direct answer to the highpriest‘s question (Matt. 26.63f., Luke 22.67f.). In any case, his reply121 Mounce‟s Complete Expository Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Old and New Testament Words, page 109, William Mounce,General Editor122 A New History <strong>of</strong> Early Christianity, page 16, Charles Freeman123 How Jesus Became a Christian, pages 59, 60, Barrie Wilson39

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – what?was taken as an admission that he was the Christ, and it was as apretended Messiah, ‗King <strong>of</strong> the Jews‘, that he was sent to the cross(cf. Mark 15.26,32). Yet it is clear that his enemies could produce noother evidence that he had ever made this claim for himself.In the Gospel <strong>of</strong> John, on the other hand, Jesus is acknowledged to bethe Christ from the very beginning <strong>of</strong> his public ministry ... Here thereis a clear contradiction between John and the other Gospels, and therecan be no doubt that the evidence <strong>of</strong> the earlier gospels is the moretrustworthy.Unfortunately, this means that there is no sufficient evidence to showwhether or not Jesus in fact believed himself to be the Messiah. ...It is, however, clear that in Christian usage the word first acquired anew and different meaning, and then lost all real meaning, andbecame simply a proper name like ‗Jesus‘ itself. The latterdevelopment was all but inevitable among G[ree]k-speaking GentileChristians, who were not interested in a ‗Christ‘ who should restorethe kingdom to Israel, and who did not understand the literal meaning<strong>of</strong> the word— they probably <strong>of</strong>ten took it to be an adj[ective]meaning ‗good‘, ‗kind‘ (chrestos), which was pronounced in the sameway though spelled differently.What is much more surprising is that Paul, Jew though he was, hardlyever uses the word except as a proper name, which can be combinedwith, or substituted for, the name Jesus, without any thought <strong>of</strong> itsspecial meaning. 124A number <strong>of</strong> prophecies supposedly fulfilled in Jesus<strong>GM</strong>, pages 132-133Actually, it happened the other way around. Jesus‘ followers were totally devastated and confoundedwhen their leader, whom they had believed would rescue them from the yoke <strong>of</strong> Roman oppression,was instead put to death by them. This caused Jesus‘ followers to go back to their scriptures – whichmost likely included the expositions prepared by the communities at the Dead Sea – to get anunderstanding <strong>of</strong> what had happened.124 A Theological Word Book <strong>of</strong> the Bible, pages 44-46, (art. ―Christ‖ by J. Y. Campbell), edited by AlanRichardson D.D.40

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – what?As they did this, they reinterpreted their Hebrew Scripture and in turn wrote stories about the leader tomake them conform to those interpretations.To make sense out <strong>of</strong> the fact that the one in whom they believed theyhad experienced the meaning <strong>of</strong> God had actually been executed on across. As they processed this internal debate, they found consolationand affirmation in their sacred writings, so that these writings beganto shape their memory <strong>of</strong> Jesus. They fitted his life into thisemerging scriptural portrait. Far from Jesus fulfilling theexpectations <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Israel for a messiah who was to comein some programmed way, they simply told the story <strong>of</strong> Jesus sothat he fitted into this scriptural pattern. ...The Jesus experience was real. However, the gospels’ explanation<strong>of</strong> that experience, even the explanation <strong>of</strong> his death, wasanything but remembered history. The story <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ death wastold in a manner similar to that <strong>of</strong> his birth: both were filled withmythical characters that fired the church‘s imagination and lateraltered the church‘s memory. 125125 Jesus for the Non-Religious, pages 114, John Shelby Spong41

KEY WORD: “MESSIAH/ANOINTED ONE” – WHEN?(Transliterated Hebrew:

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?In the middle <strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ he will put an end to sacrifice and<strong>of</strong>fering.The Hebrew word is the masculine noun, v`BW^U 127 , while at Daniel 9:25, the words rendered ―seven‗sevens‘‖ are: v\B~U v`BW^U.To arrive at its desired outcome, <strong>GM</strong> assumes that v`BW^U [‗sevens‘] at Daniel means ―one week‖; andthat ―week‖ means ―seven days‖; and that, in turn, ―seven days‖ means ―seven years‖ in accord withthe Julian calendar and then the Gregorian calendar. In this way, ―7 ‗sevens‘‖ is taken to mean 49years, with each lasting 365¼ days. Tenuous links traversing tortuous paths.If by a tortuous route, <strong>GM</strong> says that ―7 sevens‖ really means 49 literal years, then the author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>should, by using the common theme <strong>of</strong> the “abomination that causes desolation” at the 9th, 11thand 12th chapters <strong>of</strong> Daniel, be able to confirm this by linking the ―sevens‖ at Daniel 9 with thefulfilments <strong>of</strong> the 1290 days (=> 1290 years) and the 1335 days (=> 1335 years).Daniel 9Daniel 11Daniel 12He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‗seven.‘ In the middle<strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ he will put an end to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering. And on awing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will set up an abomination that causesdesolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. 128The king <strong>of</strong> the North will return to his own country with greatwealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He willtake action against it and then return to his own country.At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time theoutcome will be different from what it was before. Ships <strong>of</strong> thewestern coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then hewill turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He willreturn and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. Hisarmed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and willabolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination thatcauses desolation. 129From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and theabomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end <strong>of</strong> the 1,335days. 130127 The following is from The Strongest NIV Concordance, page 1496, Goodrick and Kohlenberger:GK 8651: [Wbv v`BW^U, noun masculine. [20 times]:week (a time period <strong>of</strong> seven);Feast <strong>of</strong> Weeks, a festival celebrating the first produce <strong>of</strong> the harvest;a unit <strong>of</strong> time used in the book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, possibly a ―week‖ <strong>of</strong> seven years:Weeks (7) Exodus 34:22; Lev 12:5; Deut 16:9; 10, 16; 2 Chron 8:13; Jer 5:24Sevens (4) Dan 9:24, 25, 25, 26Seven (3) Eze 5:21; Dan 9:27, 27Weeks (2 + 3427) Dan 10:2, 3Bridal week (1) Gen 29:27Feast <strong>of</strong> Weeks (1): Num 28:26Untranslated (1)128 Daniel 9:27129 Daniel 11:28-31130 Daniel 12:11-1243

“The abomination thatcauses desolation”Daniel 9:27He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‗seven.‘ In themiddle <strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ he will put an end to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering.And on a wing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will set up an abomination thatcauses desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out onhim.Daniel 11:28-31The king <strong>of</strong> the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will beset against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his owncountry.At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will bedifferent from what it was before. Ships <strong>of</strong> the western coastlands will oppose him, and hewill lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He willreturn and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. His armed forces will rise upto desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up theabomination that causes desolation.Daniel 12:11-12From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causesdesolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for andreaches the end <strong>of</strong> the 1,335 days.Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?44

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?Hebrew and OG interpretations <strong>of</strong> “heptads”The Hebrew and Old Greek (OG=>LXX) versions show that the earliest translators interpreted the―sevens / week / day / year‖ differently.An early attempt to update the chronology <strong>of</strong> the 70 year-weeks in thelight <strong>of</strong> the subsequent events <strong>of</strong> Hasmonean history appears in theOld Greek (OG) translation <strong>of</strong> Daniel. ...In the Hebrew version <strong>of</strong> the passage, ‗heptads‘ uniformly refer toyear-weeks. By contrast, the Greek translators use the correspondingGreek term () only sporadically. Where they do employthis word, they appear to understand an actual seven-day week. 131Elsewhere, the translators have abandoned the idea <strong>of</strong> ‗year-weeks‘ infavor <strong>of</strong> straightforward reckoning in years, which they render eitherby the Greek word or .Thus, the OG version <strong>of</strong> the relevant portion <strong>of</strong> vv 26 and 27 is thefollowing: ‗(26a): And after seven and 70 and 62 ..., an anointing willbe taken away and it will not be ... (27) And at the completion <strong>of</strong>times (), and after seven and 70 periods( ς ) and 62 years ( ) up to the time <strong>of</strong> the completion <strong>of</strong>the war, the desolation will be taken away in the strengthening <strong>of</strong> thecovenant for many weeks ( ς ς.) In this highlyparaphrastic rendering <strong>of</strong> the 70 heptads, only 139 years have beenassigned to the duration <strong>of</strong> the city and sanctuary. 132With such variance in these verses at Daniel 9 from its early days, it cannot be claimed withconfidence that the original intent <strong>of</strong> the prophecy has ever been clear, or that God took steps toprevent its meaning being lost.“7 sevens” and “62 sevens” were not continuousSignificantly, the Hebrew text <strong>of</strong> the ―7 sevens‖ and the ―62 sevens‖ indicates that they are not takenas being continuous, that they are not to be taken as one following immediately from the other.Further, and even more significantly, some early Hebrew renderings expected the Messiah/Khristos toappear at the end <strong>of</strong> the ―7 sevens‖. It is not insignificant that the people living under the yoke <strong>of</strong> neo-Babylonian bondage saw Cyrus as the king who had been anointed by God. 133As it stands, the Hebrew text does not allow for a primary fulfillment<strong>of</strong> the prophecy during the earthly ministry <strong>of</strong> our Lord in the Romanera. Instead, the passage translates literally as follows:And you are to know and understandfrom the going forth <strong>of</strong> a word to restore and to build Jerusalemuntil an anointed one who is a ruler, [zaqeph qaton]there shall be seven weeks; [‗athnach]… and for sixty-two weeks [rebia]it shall be restored and built street and moat, [zaqeph qaton]even in distressful times. 134131 Footnote, Adler, page 206 – That the translators understood the term as an actual week is implied by theirversion <strong>of</strong> [Daniel] 9:27, where they render the Hebrew with the Greek ‗ ς ς ‘. The translatorhere has rendered the Hebrew as ‗many weeks‘, because as elsewhere he imagines the weeks as seven-dayintervals.132 Adler, page 206133 Isaiah 45:1ff45

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?The careful reader will observe that the ‗athnach, the strongestdisjunctive Masoretic accent mark between verse dividers, separatesthe ―seven weeks‖ from the ―sixty-two weeks,‖ rather than joiningthem into a corporate entity equaling ―sixty-nine,‖ again, as manyEnglish translations imply. 135 Thus the larger period <strong>of</strong> ―seventyweeks‖ is divided into three smaller ones, consisting <strong>of</strong> ―sevenweeks‖ (forty-nine yrs.), ―sixty-two weeks‖ (434 yrs.), and ―oneweek‖ (seven yrs.). The most significant break comes between the―seven‖ and the ―sixty-two.‖ The first prophetic period measuresforty-nine years which extend ―from the going forth <strong>of</strong> a word torestore and build Jerusalem until an anointed ruler.‖In contrast, the second period is associated with the 434 years <strong>of</strong>rebuilding ―street and moat, even in distressful times.‖ If thesenumbers are read separately, as the Masoretic punctuation indicates, itis impossible for the phrase ―an anointed ruler‖ to be applied to ―TheMessiah the Prince,‖ regardless <strong>of</strong> where the terminus a quo islocated. In other words, in order to obtain a Christologicalinterpretation <strong>of</strong> this passage, the received text must be emended.Regarding this phenomenon, it is instructive to notice that the earliesteditions <strong>of</strong> the King James Version (1611–1785) follow the Masoreticpunctuation and place a semi-colon after the ―seven weeks,‖ thusseparating the numerals. However, in 1785 an annotated editionappeared which retained the Masoretic punctuation in its text, butadded an explanatory note suggesting that ―a colon should be placedat the end <strong>of</strong> this sentence,‖ that is, after the ―seven weeks and sixtytwoweeks,‖ which in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the editor was, ―wrong placed inthe middle <strong>of</strong> it in our English Bibles.‖ 136 No objective basis is givenfor this emendation apart from the telling assertion that the prophecyis then ―justly allowed to be one <strong>of</strong> the noblest … in the OldTestament, as it is one <strong>of</strong> the strongest pro<strong>of</strong>s against the Jews, infavour <strong>of</strong> Christianity … since it determines the very time Christ wasto come into the world, enter into his ministry, and be cut <strong>of</strong>f for thesins <strong>of</strong> the people.‖ 137 Thirteen years later in 1798 the suggestedemendation began to appear in the text <strong>of</strong> the KJV, 138 although nolonger with an explanatory note.Admittedly, this is not an emendation <strong>of</strong> the consonantal text, butonly <strong>of</strong> the Masoretic pointing, which all agree is neither inspired norinfallible. Nevertheless, the careful work <strong>of</strong> these Jewish scholarsfrom the sixth to ninth centuries AD is usually recognized as astarting point for examining a passage unless there is good reason foran emendation. Even then, such changes are normally based onobjective evidence rather than theological bias. This well acceptedpractice is supported by the so-called ―scholar‘s dictum,‖ whichmaintains that ―the more the difficulties in understanding an134 In order to give the reader a more direct sense <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew text, a wooden-literal translation is provided,avoiding lower/upper case distinctions. Disjunctive accents weaker than the rebia are represented only by acarriage return. (Spiritual Failure, Postponement, And Daniel 9, footnote 9, page 213, Ronald W. Pierce.)135 Again, the RSV renders the text more accurately than do the KJV, NKJV, NASV, and NIV. (Pierce, footnote10, page 213)136 Ostervald, et al., The Holy Bible…with Annotations (London: Harrison, 1785) ad loc. (Pierce, footnote 11,page 214)137 Ostervald, Holy Bible, ad loc Dan 9:24. (Pierce, footnote 12, page 214)138 The Holy Bible (Massachusetts: Thomas, 1798) ad loc. (Pierce, footnote 13, page 214)46

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?important passage… accumulate, the less we are permitted to make anattempt at overcoming them by mere alteration <strong>of</strong> the text. In suchcases the text has been transmitted with especial care.‖ 139Surprisingly, such ―alteration <strong>of</strong> this text‖ is done most <strong>of</strong>ten by thosewho otherwise demonstrate a high regard for the Masoretic pointingand punctuation. For example, in their respective commentaries onthe Book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, such conservative writers as Baldwin, 140Feinberg, 141 Walvoord, 142 Wood, 143 and Archer 144 all gloss over thisdifficulty with scarcely a comment. Similarly, Young asserts withoutsupport that the pointing ―may be … in error‖ (as he thinks it is in thiscase). He continues, ―if the Masoretic pointing be retained, it may beregarded merely as serving to indicate, not the principal division <strong>of</strong>the sentence, but simply that the two phrases are not to beconnected.‖ 145 However, he then goes on to connect the two phrases,again giving no explanation. Likewise, Hoehner attempts to overcomethe difficulty by arguing on the subjective basis that an ‗athnachsometimes occurs ―where normally one would not expect it.‖ Further,he expresses the opinion that in Dan 9:25 it is ―foreign to the contextand makes no sense.‖ 146In short, no well-supported objective argument has been presented infavor <strong>of</strong> emending the MT so as to combine the numerals. 147 Instead,the only basis seems to remain a theological bias not unlike thatwhich brought about the change in the KJV over two hundred yearsago. In contrast to this unsatisfactory methodology, the present studymaintains on the basis <strong>of</strong> the context that the received reading is notonly at home, but indeed makes better sense than the suggestedchange. 148OG compared with HebrewIn the Hebrew version <strong>of</strong> the passage, ‗heptads‘ uniformly refer toyear-weeks. By contrast, the Greek translators use the correspondingGreek term () only sporadically. Where they do employthis word, they appear to understand an actual seven-day week. 149139 Montgomery, page 377. (Pierce, footnote 14, page 214)140 J. G. Baldwin (Daniel [TOTC; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1978] 170) only points out that thepunctuation is not part <strong>of</strong> the original text. (Pierce, footnote 15, page 215)141 C. L. Feinberg, Daniel, the Man and His Visions (Chappaqua: Christian Herald, 1981) 115-35. (Pierce,footnote 16, page 214)142 J. F. Walvoord (Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation [Chicago: Moody, 1971] 229) comes closest tomentioning it when he charges Montgomery with ―straining to prove a non-Christological interpretation.‖(Pierce, footnote 17, page 214)143 L. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). (Pierce, footnote 18, page 214)144 Archer, ―Daniel,‖ 111-21. (Pierce, footnote 19, page 214)145 E. J. Young, The Prophecy <strong>of</strong> Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 205. (Pierce, footnote 20, page 214)146 Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 130-31. (Pierce, footnote 21, page 214)147 R. T. Beckwith comes close, but does not deal with the Masoretic pointing at 9:25 as much as he does thescope <strong>of</strong> the seventy sevens (―Daniel 9 and the Date <strong>of</strong> Messiah‘s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic,Zealot and Early Christian Computation,‖ RevQ 10 [1981] 521). Beyond this, his conclusions are answered wellby T. E. McComiskey (―The Seventy ‗Weeks‘ <strong>of</strong> Daniel against the Background <strong>of</strong> Ancient Near EasternLiterature,‖ WTJ 47 [1985] 1825), whose study treats thoroughly the Hebrew syntax as well as the earlyversions. (Pierce, footnote 22, page 214)148 Spiritual Failure, Postponement, And Daniel 9, pages 213–215, Ronald W. Pierce, Trinity Journal 10.2 (Fall1989)149 Adler, page 20647

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?In the Hebrew version, the vision foretells that during the last half <strong>of</strong>this year-week, there would come an end to Antiochus‘ sacrilegeagainst the temple. ... But the wording <strong>of</strong> the OG implies that in theeyes <strong>of</strong> the translators, the final week had already been realized in thetemple reforms instituted by Judas - reforms apparently still fresh intheir minds. 150One <strong>of</strong> the notable features <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew text <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s apocalypse<strong>of</strong> 70 weeks is its absence <strong>of</strong> a messianic expectation. The ‗twoanointed ones‘ in Dan 9:25-26 are simply historical figures in thesuccession <strong>of</strong> Jewish high priests, Jeshua and Onias III. The OGtranslation also takes the minimalist view, perhaps even more so thanthe Hebrew. ...At v24, ... the expressionis a literal rendering <strong>of</strong> theHebrew and could refer either to an individual or the sanctuary. Atv25, where the MT has ‗an anointed one, a prince‘, the OG givessimply ‗to the Lord‘. This contrasts with the later translators, whoconsistently speak <strong>of</strong> some future anointed individual. 151The OG translation <strong>of</strong> v26 reveals the same ‗non-messianic‘tendency. Whereas the Hebrew and some <strong>of</strong> the later versions refer tothe cutting <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> an ‗anointed one‘, the OG speaks instead only <strong>of</strong> theremoval <strong>of</strong> ‗anointing‘. .... Verse 27 contains the only clear allusion tothe removal <strong>of</strong> an ‗anointed one‘. 152THEODOTIONIC RENDERING OF DAN 9:25In the Masoretic version <strong>of</strong> Dan 9:25, the events predicted to occur atthe end <strong>of</strong> the first seven weeks were clearly distinguished from the‗cutting <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> the anointed one‘ after 62 weeks (v26). By delimitingthe first seven weeks from the subsequent 62, the Masoretic versionthereby discouraged a single messianic interpretation <strong>of</strong> the verses.By contrast, Theodotion‘s translation, the one almost universally usedin the Greek-speaking Church, encouraged a rather differentunderstanding: ‗From the going forth <strong>of</strong> the commandment untilChrist the prince, there shall be seven weeks and 62 weeks.‘ Inblurring the chronological demarcation between the first seven weeksand the ensuing 62 weeks, his translation enabled the seven weeks <strong>of</strong>v25 to be construed together with the subsequent 62.The impact <strong>of</strong> this rendering on Christian exegesis was pr<strong>of</strong>ound. It<strong>of</strong>fered chronographers an additional 49 years to fill up the interimperiod between the ‗going forth <strong>of</strong> the word‘ and Christ‘s advent. Atthe same time, it allowed interpreters to impose a single messianicinterpretation on the ς ς <strong>of</strong> v25 and the events <strong>of</strong>v26. 153EXAMPLES WHERE THE MT PUNCTUATION WAS PRESUPPOSED AT DANIEL 9There are a few exceptional cases, however, in which the exposition<strong>of</strong> Dan 9:25-26 by Christian expositors presupposes the version foundin the Masoretic punctuation <strong>of</strong> the text.150 Adler, page 207151 Adler, pages 207- 208152 Adler, page 208153 Adler, page 22348

Key word: ―Messiah/Anointed One‖ – when?The significance <strong>of</strong> this minority tradition is that by dissociating theς ς <strong>of</strong> v25 from the anointing described in v26, itsadherents deviated from the dominant Christological interpretation <strong>of</strong>Dan 9:25-26.Moreover, the periodization 154 into seven and 62 heptads produced achronology falling far short <strong>of</strong> the chronology required by their ownChristological interpretation <strong>of</strong> this passage.What is equally notable is that the earliest and best-known exponents<strong>of</strong> this interpretation - Clement, Hippolytus and Eusebius - had atmost a superficial familiarity with Hebrew and do not reveal anydirect familiarity with the Hebrew version <strong>of</strong> Daniel reflected in theMasoretic tradition. Like the majority <strong>of</strong> early Christiancommentaries, they continue to cite the popularly used Theodotionicform <strong>of</strong> Daniel, even though their interpretation departs from it. 155In the following respected RSV and NRSV translations, the ―seven sevens‖ and the ―sixty-twosevens‖ are indicated as being separate and not continuous. This reading indicates that an AnointedOne would appear at the end <strong>of</strong> ―seven weeks‖.RSV24 ―Seventy weeks <strong>of</strong> years are decreedconcerning your people and your holy city, t<strong>of</strong>inish the transgression, to put an end to sin, andto atone for iniquity, to bring in everlastingrighteousness, to seal both vision and prophet,and to anoint a most holy place.25 Know therefore and understand that from thegoing forth <strong>of</strong> the word to restore and buildJerusalem to the coming <strong>of</strong> an anointed one, aprince, there shall be seven weeks. Then forsixty-two weeks it shall be built again withsquares and moat, but in a troubled time.26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointedone shall be cut <strong>of</strong>f, and shall have nothing; andthe people <strong>of</strong> the prince who is to come shalldestroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shallcome with a flood, and to the end there shall bewar; desolations are decreed.27 And he shall make a strong covenant withmany for one week; and for half <strong>of</strong> the week heshall cause sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering to cease; andupon the wing <strong>of</strong> abominations shall come onewho makes desolate, until the decreed end ispoured out on the desolator.‖Daniel 9: 24-27NRSV24 ―Seventy weeks are decreed for your peopleand your holy city: to finish the transgression, toput an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, tobring in everlasting righteousness, to seal bothvision and prophet, and to anoint a most holyplace.25 Know therefore and understand: from the timethat the word went out to restore and rebuildJerusalem until the time <strong>of</strong> an anointed prince,there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-twoweeks it shall be built again with streets andmoat, but in a troubled time.26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed oneshall be cut <strong>of</strong>f and shall have nothing, and thetroops <strong>of</strong> the prince who is to come shall destroythe city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come witha flood, and to the end there shall be war.Desolations are decreed.27 He shall make a strong covenant with manyfor one week, and for half <strong>of</strong> the week he shallmake sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering cease; and in theirplace shall be an abomination that desolates, untilthe decreed end is poured out upon thedesolator.‖154 ―separation‖155 Adler, pages 223-22449

JESUS‟ THREE AND A HALF YEARS OF PREACHING<strong>GM</strong>, pages 131-132No one knows the length <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ ministry. The author assumes it lasted 3½ years, whereas estimates<strong>of</strong> its length range from 12 months to 16 years. The Gospels do not provide the data needed.In the application <strong>of</strong> this last Week to the history <strong>of</strong> Jesus Christ therehas always been embarrassment. In the elder interpretation <strong>of</strong> theGospels the Saviour‘s ministry lasted but one year; the subsequentextension <strong>of</strong> it to three years entailed comparison with the Half-Week<strong>of</strong> Daniel = 3½ years. 156ASSUMPTIONS ON THE LENGTH OF JESUS‟ MINISTRYIt is very difficult to come up with a clear length <strong>of</strong> the ministry fromthe data in the NT and Josephus, as there are many differentconflicting facts (such as the year when Jesus was born or the age atwhich Jesus was when he died).If I were to follow just the data found in Luke and Josephus, therecould only be a year in Jesus‘ ministry. Luke dates Jesus birth to thecensus <strong>of</strong> Quirinius in AD 6 (2:1-2, that this census occurred in AD 6is confirmed by the second mention <strong>of</strong> it in Acts 5:37), and he datesthe start <strong>of</strong> John the Baptist‘s ministry to the 15th year <strong>of</strong> TiberiusCaesar (3:1-2), i.e. AD 29. The Society and many others take this tobe the date <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ baptism, but that is not what the text says.Since Luke has John the Baptist born around the time when Jesus wasborn, this means that John was about 23 when he started his ministry.We know that John had a very large movement by the time he died,considering what Josephus said about him. We later learn in v. 23that ―Jesus himself was almost thirty years old when he began hisministry‖, i.e. 29, and since John was about the same age, this meansthat John had about 6 years to build his ministry.Then Jesus was baptised and Jesus started his ministry when the latterwas 29, i.e. in AD 35. Although the other gospels say that Johnbaptised Jesus, this is not what Luke says: it doesn‘t state who thebaptiser was and it says that John was already imprisoned by Herod(3:19-22).156 Montgomery, page 394, footnote 650

Jesus‘ three and a half years <strong>of</strong> preachingNext we see that while John was imprisoned, Jesus arose in his placeas a successor in the ministry, with Jesus recognizing the ―baptism <strong>of</strong>John‖ and with John showing interest in Jesus‘ work and by havinghis own messengers sent to see who this person was preaching in thewilderness (7:18-35).Then at some point, Herod beheads John (9:7-9); Luke does notnarrate the execution itself but only mentions it after the fact andmakes clear that this occurred around the time Jesus was becomingfamous as a successor <strong>of</strong> John (the same author in Acts 18:24-9:6describes how John‘s disciples later became Christians). We do knowfrom Josephus roughly when this happened: the defeat <strong>of</strong> Herod‘sarmy in AD 36 was popularly regarded as divine punishment forHerod‘s execution <strong>of</strong> John (Antiquitates 18.116-119), and this battleoccurred because Herod had divorced Phaselis the daughter <strong>of</strong> theking <strong>of</strong> the Nabataeans to take as his wife Herodias, the wife <strong>of</strong> hishalf-brother Philip.The account <strong>of</strong> the beheading in Mark also links the death <strong>of</strong> John tohis criticism <strong>of</strong> Herod‘s marriage to Herodias (6:17-28), which hadoccurred after Philip died in the 20th year <strong>of</strong> Tiberius, i.e. AD 34.So this dates the execution <strong>of</strong> John pretty securely to sometimebetween AD 34 and 36, and if the beheading occurred on Herod‘sbirthday, then the date would be August <strong>of</strong> AD 35. This fits perfectlywith the date above re the start <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ ministry in AD 35. Note thatLuke does not depict John languishing in prison for years and years;it depicts the time between Jesus‘ baptism and John‘s execution asrather brief. And then Jesus is construed as himself executed thefollowing Passover, under Pontius Pilate and high priest Caiaphas.This too fits with what Josephus (Antiquitates 18.88-90) writes aboutPilate: Pilate was deposed in very late AD 36 or early 37 just beforethe Passover and shortly before the death <strong>of</strong> Tiberius Caesar onMarch 16, AD 37. And Caiaphas was also deprived <strong>of</strong> the highpriesthood on Passover the time when Tiberius Caesar died (18.95),i.e. March-April AD 37, so Jesus could not have been executed as lateas AD 37.So if you just go with the data in Luke-Acts and Josephus (andperhaps the story <strong>of</strong> John‘s execution in Mark), the picture is that <strong>of</strong>Jesus‘ ministry spanning about a year between AD 35 and 36. This <strong>of</strong>course strictly ignores the very different traditions found elsewhere,such as in Matthew (which places the date <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ birth muchearlier) and John (which has a very different chronologicalframework). But it also makes sense to read Luke-Acts with Josephussince the former is possibly dependent on the latter as a source. Notetoo that starting Jesus‘ ministry as early as AD 29 creates hugeproblems with Jewish history: Herodias was still married to Philipand not Herod as late as AD 34 (and Herod was still married toPhaselis), John the Baptist was executed rather close to AD 36 andprobably not many years earlier, etc. 157Reasoning that Jesus‘ ministry lasted 3½ years is based on fulfilling the prophecy that is being soughtto prove. This is a prime example <strong>of</strong> circular reasoning.157 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/197631/1/How-did-the-idea-that-Jesus-ministry-lasted-3-1-2-years-develop (post by Leolaia, 18 August 2010). (accessed October 2010)51

“70 YEARS” ENDED WHEN PETER PREACHED TO CORNELIUS<strong>GM</strong>, page 131<strong>GM</strong>, page 132The <strong>GM</strong> author assumes that the action by Peter fulfilled Daniel‘s prophecy, since no reference orallusion to Daniel appears at Acts chapter 10. <strong>GM</strong>‘s author also assumes that Peter preached toCornelius exactly 3½ years after Christ was put to death.The middle <strong>of</strong> the Week was then naturally placed at the termination<strong>of</strong> the Lord‘s ministry on earth, but the problem arose what to do withthe balance. Without any adequate explanation, such authorities asEusebius, Potyrchronius, Theodoret, postulate a 3½-year period afterChrist left the earth. A favorite modern interpretation is to identify thetermination <strong>of</strong> the second Half-Week with the preaching <strong>of</strong> theGospel to the Gentiles in the episode <strong>of</strong> the centurion Cornelius.Similarly, the early Jewish interpretation in the time <strong>of</strong> Jerome founda correspondence for the Half-Week in the three or four years <strong>of</strong> 66-70 AD, and for the second Half-Week the three years or so <strong>of</strong> theHadrianic war. 158This is all based on the assumption that Daniel 9 in some way relates to the ministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus. Sorather than proving the veracity <strong>of</strong> the prophecy, these assertions assume the fulfilment in Jesus thatthey wish to prove.158 Montgomery, page 394, footnote 652

PEOPLE OF THE OTHER PRINCE DESTROYED JERUSALEM<strong>GM</strong>, page 132In its effort to separate the message <strong>of</strong> verse 26, <strong>GM</strong> wishes to have two ―princes‖. To do this, <strong>GM</strong>employs The Amplified Bible once more: ―the people <strong>of</strong> the other prince‖.However, <strong>GM</strong> conveniently forgot to point out that it has misrepresented The Amplified Bible, sincethat translation actually writes: ―the people <strong>of</strong> the [other] prince‖. As the explanatory note to TheAmplified Bible distinctly states, square brackets [] enclose words that ―contain justified clarifyingwords or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text.‖It is likely that Daniel 9 has different people in mind; some say these are two Jewish High Priestsassociated with the second-century BCE uprising <strong>of</strong> the Jews. Such application, including that by <strong>GM</strong>,presume the overall scenario assumed for the fulfilment <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9.<strong>GM</strong> assumes that through dying, Jesus fulfilled Daniel‘s prophecy that he would cause the Jews‘system <strong>of</strong> sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering to come to its end. However, the immediate context at Daniel 9 showsthat the one who ends ―sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering‖ would also be responsible for setting up an―abomination that causes desolation‖. Many relate these events to the persecution and desecrationwrought by Antiochus Epiphanes, when he pr<strong>of</strong>aned the Jew‘s sacred temple and prevented themconducting their services.The people <strong>of</strong> the ruler who will come will destroy the city and thesanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until theend, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenantwith many for one ‗seven.‘ In the middle <strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ he will put anend to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering. And on a wing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will setup an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreedis poured out on him. 159It is difficult to see how <strong>GM</strong> can make the ―70 sevens‖ stretch down to include the destruction <strong>of</strong>Jerusalem while at the same time saying that the period came to its end when Peter preached toCornelius more than three decades earlier.“ABOMINATIONS THAT BRING DESOLATION”The expression ―abominations‖ appears three times in Daniel, and these latter passages provide anunderstanding that show the passage is not associated to the ministry on earth <strong>of</strong> the NT Jesus.Daniel 9: In the middle <strong>of</strong> the ‗seven‘ he will put an end to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering.And on a wing <strong>of</strong> the temple he will set up an abomination that causesdesolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. (Daniel9:27)159 Daniel 9:26-2753

People <strong>of</strong> the other prince destroyed JerusalemDaniel 11: At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time theoutcome will be different from what it was before. Ships <strong>of</strong> thewestern coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart.Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant.He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holycovenant.His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and willabolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination thatcauses desolation. (Daniel 11:29-31)Daniel 12: The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters <strong>of</strong> the river, liftedhis right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swearby him who lives forever, saying, ―It will be for a time, times and halfa time. When the power <strong>of</strong> the holy people has been finally broken,all these things will be completed.‖I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, ―My lord, what will theoutcome <strong>of</strong> all this be?‖He replied, ―Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed upand sealed until the time <strong>of</strong> the end.Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked willcontinue to be wicked. None <strong>of</strong> the wicked will understand, but thosewho are wise will understand.―From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and theabomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290days.‖ (Daniel 12:7-11)54

“PROPHECY THAT WAS INSPIRED”<strong>GM</strong>, page 132The wording <strong>of</strong> this prophecy is so loose and so subject to the range <strong>of</strong> variant reading that it hasgenerated a plethora <strong>of</strong> different and incompatible interpretation. It therefore cannot be said to befulfilled in ―an exact manner‖.Rather than being a prophecy that clearly points to Jesus, it is so loose, so vague that it can be madeto be many things. Indeed, the events described by Gabriel bear little or no resemblance to theministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus.It is most significant that not one writer <strong>of</strong> Christian Scripture employed calculations based on Daniel9 to provide pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> Jesus. When faced with the reality that the Romans had murdered the one theyhad pinned their hopes on to free them from Roman Tyranny, Jesus‘ followers scoured their Hebrewwritings for explanations. They reapplied passages, particularly Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and gavethem meanings that were not originally intended. They took place names and created stories based ontheir reworking <strong>of</strong> those texts (Nazareth; Bethlehem, etc.).The NT writers were fully aware <strong>of</strong> Daniel, naming him and using his expressions such as ―son <strong>of</strong>man‖, ―abominations that bring desolation‖, and making references to the resurrection <strong>of</strong> the dead,which Daniel introduced. But however much <strong>GM</strong> attempts to align the seventy ―sevens‖ with thetimes <strong>of</strong> the NT Jesus, there is no evidence that the NT writers understood that Daniel 9 could be usedin that way.The New Testament writers and others <strong>of</strong> that time were fully aware <strong>of</strong> Daniel‘s writings, includinghis several references to the abomination that makes desolation, but they appear to be totally silent onthis use <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9.55

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONThe <strong>GM</strong> book aims to provide a series <strong>of</strong> evidences which show that the Bible is ―God‘s Word‖. In its9th Chapter, the author says that the Bible predicts events that come to pass. Since God is able to dothis, the author <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong> <strong>of</strong>fers this as an evidence <strong>of</strong> ―divine inspiration‖The author provided the 9th chapter <strong>of</strong> Daniel as the example <strong>of</strong> a fulfilled prophecy. The <strong>GM</strong> bookclaims this prophecy was fulfilled in key features <strong>of</strong> the ministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus, most notably by identifyingthe year <strong>of</strong> his death.Any enquiry <strong>of</strong> the Internet reveals a very wide range <strong>of</strong> views on the book <strong>of</strong> Daniel, particularly onits 9th chapter. This <strong>Critique</strong> is not concerned with promoting any view, but focuses on the evidence<strong>of</strong>fered by the <strong>GM</strong> book to show that the Bible is the Word <strong>of</strong> God.Nevertheless, some points are required to help provide a <strong>Critique</strong> <strong>of</strong> the points made by <strong>GM</strong>. Eachreader must make a personal decision on the full meaning <strong>of</strong> this prophecy at Daniel 9.The analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>GM</strong>‘s interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 discussed:The wording <strong>of</strong> the prophecy is so loose that it enables a wide range <strong>of</strong> plausibleinterpretations, many <strong>of</strong> which do not include a fulfilment in the ministry <strong>of</strong> Jesus.These interpretations provide a wide range <strong>of</strong> starting events, with each event assigned arange <strong>of</strong> dates.Explanations and dates <strong>of</strong>ten begin from the predetermined outcome upon Jesus and then theywork back in time to seek events that may be linked.The total focus <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 is the state <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem and its sanctuary.The message given to Daniel speaks <strong>of</strong> ―sevens‖, not ―weeks‖. The expression is theologicaland ritual, based on expressions in the Law.There is no indication how the sets <strong>of</strong> ―sevens‖ run. They might operate continually, withoutintervening breaks; they might overlap, they might have breaks.Instead <strong>of</strong> the 70 years probation at the hand <strong>of</strong> Babylon, the people were given an extendedprobationary period <strong>of</strong> 70 ―sevens‖. By the end <strong>of</strong> the second lot <strong>of</strong> ―sevens‖, the peoplewould have had to demonstrate a return to righteousness.The message does not speak <strong>of</strong> a ―decree‖ nor does it say that it would come from a secularruler. The Hebrew simply means a ―word‖; they were uttered by the Lord God through hisprophets, such as Jeremiah.The promise to rebuild the city and the sanctuary was uttered by the Lord God through hisprophets.The promise to restore his people, which included spiritual restoration, was uttered by theLord God through his prophets.There is no precise date when the Lord God made his commitments, and their fulfilmentswere conditional on the people‘s genuine contrition and repentance.Towards the end <strong>of</strong> that period an anointed ruler would arise for a short time; his followerswould do despicable things towards the temple <strong>of</strong> God.Those who relate the prophecy to the length <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ ministry are unable to show how manyyears he ministered. Estimates range from 12 months to 14 years, maybe even 16 years.Interpretation <strong>of</strong> the prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27 initially requires understanding <strong>of</strong> the contemporarymeaning <strong>of</strong> key terms used in it. These include: (―word‖); (―restore‖); (―rebuild); and (―sevens‖). Itwas shown that these required an utterance (a word, most <strong>of</strong>ten spoken) to bring the Lord‘s peopleland and physically rebuilt and spiritually restored to harmony with the Lord. These words were56

Summary and Conclusionuttered by the Lord. Any declaration made by a heathen king was subsequent to and a consequence <strong>of</strong>the prior and superior declaration by the Lord <strong>of</strong> the Hebrews.It was also shown that the meanings <strong>of</strong> the numbers lay in the message understood <strong>of</strong> them by thecommunity to whom they were addressed. While a modern person expects numbers to be used toprovide mathematical precision, that attitude was not necessarily shared by those ancient people.In Jewish terms, a Messiah is a King or High Priest who is anointed with oil to act as an agent orpolitical catalyst, to assist in bringing about God‘s rule. In Christian usage, the word acquired ameaning different to the Hebrew meaning given it by the Hebrews, including at Daniel.The ministry and death <strong>of</strong> Jesus do not satisfy the criteria set out as occurring at the end <strong>of</strong> thisprophecy. The predicted prince and followers, rather than supporting Judaism – as Jesus and hisimmediate followers did – are described in the prophecy as being completely antagonistic.Events at the outset <strong>of</strong> the prophecy which are claimed by the <strong>GM</strong> book as relating to Jesus areactually addressed to the Hebrew people.<strong>GM</strong> assumed that the ―7 sevens‖ and the ―62 sevens‖ were continuous. It assumed that the word to―restore and rebuild‖ went forth from the selected monarch. It assumed that his 20th year was 455BCE, and this is open to much discussion. It assumed that the baptism <strong>of</strong> Jesus by John was theanointing. It assumed that Jesus was baptised in 29 BCE, which is again open to much discussion.Several non-exegetical disciplines support the broadly held decision that the book <strong>of</strong> Daniel waswritten by Jewish leaders about 165 BCE in order to provide the oppressed Jews with hope. Thesewriters cast their messages <strong>of</strong> encouragement to a time that was familiar to Jews, a time that was notunlike their own contemporary situation at the hand <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes.The writers employed symbolisms – which included the messages provided through meaningsassigned to numbers – as a means to encourage while at the same time their oppressors would beignorant <strong>of</strong> the messages being distributed.Therefore, rather than being evidence <strong>of</strong> a prophecy about Jesus that was clearly written before histime, analysis shows that Daniel 9 dealt with the Jews‘ suffering during the second century BCE. It isMan‘s Word, written by people to meet a very human, local and immediate need.The <strong>GM</strong> book then lists other prophecies that supposedly found fulfilment in Jesus, such as Nazareth,Bethlehem, and so on. These were not prophecies, but were made to appear so by disappointedfollowers. They took passages from the Hebrew Scriptures and reapplied them to Jesus, making outthat this was their original intent. Particular use was made <strong>of</strong> the Suffering Servant passages (Psalm22 and Isaiah 53), although several others were dragged in. In this way, later writers created birth andcrucifixion stories.Those stories fail to provide evidence that the Bible is “God’s Word”.57

FURTHER READINGS58

FURTHER READING:WHEN WAS DANIEL‟S “70 WEEKS” FIRST APPLIED TO JESUS?JWN Post by “Leolaia” 160 , 17 Mar 2008 161There weren‘t just two interpretations <strong>of</strong> this prophetic survey <strong>of</strong> history but rather a dizzying array <strong>of</strong>them in Jewish and Christian exegesis. There were many kinds <strong>of</strong> Christological understandings aswell. It is important to recognize that there were three different figures in the passage in the MT:(1) the ―anointed ruler‖ <strong>of</strong> v. 25,(2) the ―anointed one‖ who is cut <strong>of</strong>f in v. 26, and(3) the coming ruler in v. 27,whereas in the translation <strong>of</strong> LXX OG, (2) was not construed as a person, and in the translation <strong>of</strong>Theodotion, (1) and (2) were also conflated together chronologically. Because <strong>of</strong> this, some took (3)to be the actual messianic figure, while others (at the latest stage in the exegesis) took a combination<strong>of</strong> (1) and (2) to be the messianic figure, while others took (2) to signify the activity <strong>of</strong> the messiahwhile (1) an entirely different figure, whereas the oldest level <strong>of</strong> interpretation wasn‘t messianic at all(with the word ―anointed‖ pertaining to the high priesthood).Some writers, such as Josephus, had multiple interpretations in view. It is with good reason thatMontgomery called the interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 ―a dismal swamp‖. So you‘ve got Hasemoneaninterpretations focused on Alexander Jannaeus or other priest-kings, you‘ve got Herodianinterpretations that saw King Herod the Great as the ―coming ruler‖, you‘ve got other interpretationsthat saw Vespasian as the ―coming ruler‖ (and messiah), etc. etc.When you get to the earliest christological interpretations in the late second century, you still havesome elements <strong>of</strong> the oldest layers <strong>of</strong> interpretation. So(1) the ―anointed ruler‖ was regarded as Joshua son <strong>of</strong> Jozadek and(2) the removal <strong>of</strong> the chrism pertained to the activity <strong>of</strong> Jesus.It is remarkable that (1) was still distinguished from (2) in these early interpretations, even though theGreek translation cited was the version <strong>of</strong> Theodotion which already conflated (1) with (2)chronologically. This suggests that the first Christological interpretation was modified from earlierJewish interpretations that still recognized that (1) and (2) were separate.It was not until the third century AD when the two were finally conflated in the interpretation itselfand Joshua ben Jozadek was no longer considered the ―anointed ruler‖ at the end <strong>of</strong> the first 7 weeks.This allowed interpreters to start the first 7 weeks at a time much later than Joshua ben Jozadek, suchas the time <strong>of</strong> Nehemiah.The modern JW interpretation (shared in other Christian circles) <strong>of</strong> course sees (1) and (2) as the samefigure. The NWT also overtranslates the Hebrew as ―the Messiah‖ (which makes a certain messianicunderstanding inevitable) when ―an anointed one‖ is more faithful to the text.Were any Jews expecting the Messiah in 30AD based on understanding this asa prophecy?There is some evidence that around the time Jesus was born, the Herodians saw Daniel 9 as aprophecy <strong>of</strong> Herod as a messiah, as the Gentile ―coming ruler‖. There is a story about the priestscounting down the years, fearing what would happen -- if Herod would destroy the Temple as theprophecy foretold. Herod‘s subsequent efforts to rebuild the Temple, <strong>of</strong> course, were probablyrelevant to these expectations. After the Romans took control <strong>of</strong> directly governing Judea, I think the160 Although ―Leolaia‖ kindly has given permission for her opinions to be reproduced, this does not infer she isin agreement with all views expressed in this <strong>Critique</strong>.161http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/154817/1/When-was-Daniels-70-Weeks-first-applied-to-Jesus (accessed October 2010)59

Further Reading: When was Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖ first applied to Jesus?expectation turned to the Romans. I have no doubt that in AD 40, Caligula was probably believed tohave been the ―coming ruler‖, as he planned to put an idol in the Temple.Josephus, who was pro-Rome and saw Vespasian as the messiah, is generally thought to haveregarded Vespasian as the ―coming ruler‖, whose armies devastated the Temple. It is important tonote that all <strong>of</strong> these expectations saw the real messianic figure in (3), partly due to a conflationbetween this figure and the messianic figure from Genesis 49:10. If Daniel 9 was seen as a messianicprophecy, it was one that predicted that the coming ruler <strong>of</strong> Judea would be a Gentile. That was whatwas believed at the time. So those who believed in a Jewish messiah would probably not have seenDaniel 9 as pointing to a messiah. The idea that the messiah would instead be (2), i.e. the anointed onethat is cut <strong>of</strong>f, was not attested until much, much later. In fact, in the two Greek translations, OG LXXand Theodotion, (2) wasn‘t even a person but rather a chrism.Are any <strong>of</strong> these writings available, such as in the Ante Nicene Fathers?Yes, you can find them among the writings <strong>of</strong> Hippolytus, Clement <strong>of</strong> Alexandria, Julius Africanus,Eusebius, Jerome, and other writers. These sometimes present alternative interpretations whichincorporate older pre-Christian interpretations.Other pre-Christian interpretations can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus.Later Jewish sources, such as the Seder Olam, also cast light on how it was interpreted in someJewish circles in the first century.The oldest christological interpretation <strong>of</strong> Hippolytus (setting aside the earlier Christianinterpretations in the gospels that related it to the fall <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem, as did Josephus) preserves much<strong>of</strong> the older (more original) Jewish understanding <strong>of</strong> the passage. He wrote with respect to the coming<strong>of</strong> the ―anointed ruler‖ in Daniel 9:25:―Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having dividedthem into two parts, in order that what was spoken by him to theprophet might be better understood, he proceeds thus, ‗Until khristosthe prince there shall be seven weeks,‘ which make forty-nine years.It was in the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things inBabylon. Hence, the forty-nine years added to the twenty-one, makeup the seventy years, <strong>of</strong> which the blessed Jeremiah said: ‗Thesanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befellthem under Nebuchadnezzar; and after these things the people willreturn, and sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering will be presented, when khristos istheir prince.‘ Now what khristos does he mean but Joshua son <strong>of</strong>Josedek, who then returned with the people and in the 70th year uponthe rebuilding <strong>of</strong> the temple <strong>of</strong>fered sacrifices according to the Law?For all kings and priests are called khristoi‖ (Hippolytus, On Daniel2.13-14).So here Hippolytus makes the first 7 weeks run during the exile itself, starting with the declaration <strong>of</strong>the prophet Jeremiah that there would be a return from exile and a rebuilding <strong>of</strong> the city. Then the―anointed ruler‖ who appears at the end <strong>of</strong> the first 7 weeks is Joshua son <strong>of</strong> Josedek, who is the firsthigh priest after the exile. Joshua restores the ―anointing‖ <strong>of</strong> the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies which then continuesfor 62 weeks until ―the chrism is removed‖. That act he attributes to Jesus Christ, whose death causedthe Temple veil to be rent asunder -- a sign that the ―chrism‖ had departed the Temple.Hippolytus pointed to a symmetry in his interpretation, that the chrism was restored and then removedat either end <strong>of</strong> 62 weeks by two khristoi named ―Jesus‖ (making Jesus ben Jozadek prefigure JesusChrist).The problem posed by this interpretation, however, is the final week. Earlier interpretations tried tomake the entire 490-year period end with an expected desolation <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem, whether byVespasian‘s forces in AD 70, or by King Herod back in c. 40 BC, or the aftermath after the death <strong>of</strong>Alexander Jannaeus in 76 BC.60

Further Reading: When was Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖ first applied to Jesus?So Hippolytus was the first to propose a deferred week, placed into the future as a final eschatologicalweek with an intervening ―gap‖. Because the church in the fourth and fifth centuries took a dim viewto continued apocalyptic speculation, the paradigm that finally prevailed placed the fulfillment <strong>of</strong> theentire prophecy in the past, rejecting the continued use <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 as fodder for new eschatologicalexpectations.What do you think the writer <strong>of</strong> Daniel was referring to by this prophecy?I believe a fully accurate understanding is impossible because the wording is a bit garbled in places,but the intended reference <strong>of</strong> the oracle as a whole is quite explicable if you follow the rules <strong>of</strong>exegesis, e.g. take care to observe the literary structure <strong>of</strong> the passage, how it fits into its context, howelements in the passage are linked to the other parallel visions in the book, and finally how thepassage utilizes OT intertexts and how it compares to other cognate apocalyptic surveys <strong>of</strong> historyfrom roughly the same period (cf. especially the Animal Apocalypse <strong>of</strong> 1 Enoch, which is especiallyclose to our passage in meaning and form, as well as the Apocalypse <strong>of</strong> Weeks in the Epistle <strong>of</strong> Enoch,and the series <strong>of</strong> ten jubilees in the Testament <strong>of</strong> Levi). First, you need to have a good understanding<strong>of</strong> what the text says itself, and unfortunately most Christian translations follow the Theodotionversion rather than the MT and also render words in ways that imply more than they say. Here is apretty good rendering <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew (with the garbling <strong>of</strong> ―upon their place‖ emended):―Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city, untilcrime is stopped, sins brought to full measure, guilt expiated,everlasting justice introduced, the prophetic vision confirmed, and theHoly <strong>of</strong> Holies anointed (w-lmshch qdsh qdshym). Know, then, andunderstand this: from the utterance <strong>of</strong> the word regarding therebuilding <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem to the coming <strong>of</strong> the anointed leader(mshych ngyd) there will be seven weeks. Then during sixty-twoweeks it will be rebuilt, with its streets and moat, but in a time <strong>of</strong>distress. After the sixty-two weeks an anointed one (mshych) will becut down, when the city is no longer his; and the soldiers <strong>of</strong> a comingprince will ruin the sanctuary (h-qdsh). Then the end will come likea flood, and until the end there will be war. For one week he willmake a strong alliance with many; for half a week he will abolishsacrifice and oblation and upon their place will be an appallingabomination, until the decreed ruin is poured out upon the appaller‖(Anchor Bible).Note here the division <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks into three periods: 7 + 62 + 1. I could give a very long analysisto support my interpretation (which is similar to how most contemporary scholars understand thepassage), but unfortunately I don‘t have the time to do this today, so let me just say briefly that Ibelieve the interpretation that does the most justice to the structure, context, parallels, and earlyexegetical history <strong>of</strong> this passage is as follows:The chapter directly follows the discussion <strong>of</strong> the cessation <strong>of</strong> worship in the sanctuary in ch.8 and the author is especially concerned with how long the sanctuary will remain defiled. Theanswer to this question is elaborated in ch. 9, which locates this recent defiling <strong>of</strong> thesanctuary in time within an apocalyptic survey <strong>of</strong> history beginning with the exile. Thedefiling <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary in ch. 8 is seen as the last <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> ―desolations‖ (plural) <strong>of</strong>Jerusalem. The angel not only tells Daniel when and how long the defiling would occur, buthe also explains WHY it occurs.The reason why the temple was defiled so long after the return from exile is because ―thewhole <strong>of</strong> Israel flouted your Law and turned away, unwilling to listen to your voice; and thecurse and imprecation written in the Law <strong>of</strong> Moses, the servant <strong>of</strong> God, have come pouringdown on us because we have sinned against him‖ (Daniel 9:11). What law is that? The one inLeviticus 26 (which itself is alluded several times in Daniel‘s prayer) that warns that if Godhas to bring forces to destroy the sanctuary and scatter the people across the nations, he will―punish them sevenfold for their sins‖ during which time ―they must atone for their sins‖. So61

Further Reading: When was Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖ first applied to Jesus?in ch. 9 <strong>of</strong> Daniel, the prophet expects that the 70 years <strong>of</strong> exile and servitude prophesied byJeremiah was near at an end, but the angel Gabriel comes and tells him that he is wrong --instead <strong>of</strong> 70 years, the nation will have to wait 490 years for the foretold blessings to berealized. That is the ―sevenfold punishment‖ <strong>of</strong> Leviticus -- the nation must endure sevenperiods <strong>of</strong> 70 years, which add up to ten jubilees. Thus, he says that 70 weeks <strong>of</strong> years aredecreed for expiating sin and for anointing the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies. This anointing pertains to theTemple, the one that was desolated at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks <strong>of</strong> years and the one thatwas desolated again at the end <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks <strong>of</strong> years.Since Jeremiah‘s 70 years are being expanded into 490 years, the first 7 weeks are reckonedas the exile itself. The author interprets their start as ―from the utterance <strong>of</strong> the word (mnmts‟dbr) regarding the rebuilding (lbnwt) <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem‖, and this is thedbr-yhwh ―word <strong>of</strong>Yahweh‖ mentioned in v. 2 that came to the prophet Jeremiah to return and rebuild Jerusalemat the end <strong>of</strong> the 70 years, cf. Jeremiah 17:14-15, where Jeremiah yearns for the ―word <strong>of</strong>Yahweh‖ to be ―uttered on my lips‖ (dbr-yhwh ... mwts‟ shpty), 25:11-12, where Jeremiahpredicts a servitude and destruction for 70 years, 27:22 and 29:10-11, where Jeremiahpredicts a return from exile after the 70 years, and 30:18 and 31:38-40 where Jeremiahdelivers the word <strong>of</strong> Yahweh regarding the rebuilding <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem and its temple. The author<strong>of</strong> Hebrew Daniel possibly has in mind ch. 32-33 <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah, which dates itself to the 18thyear <strong>of</strong> Nebuchadnezzar (i.e. 587 BC), when the dbr m‟t yhwh ―word from Yahweh‖ came toJeremiah, announcing that after the exile ―I will bring them back to this place and make themlive in safety‖ (32:37) and ―I will restore the fortunes <strong>of</strong> Judah and Jerusalem and build(bntym) them again as they were before‖ (33:7).The first 7 weeks (a jubilee) thus transpire between the fall <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem and the coming <strong>of</strong>Joshua ben Jozadek in 538 BC. This is the first jubilee <strong>of</strong> the series and is marked <strong>of</strong>f by thecoming <strong>of</strong> an ―anointed ruler‖; this reflects the notion <strong>of</strong> 49 years <strong>of</strong> slavery followed by ajubilee <strong>of</strong> redemption in Leviticus 25, as well as the reference to Joshua and Zerubbabel as the―sons <strong>of</strong> oil‖ in Zechariah 4:14. References to the priests as ―anointed ones‖ can be found insuch places as Leviticus 4:3 and 2 Maccabees 1:10, and the high priest is called ngyd ―ruler‖in Jeremiah 20:1, 2 Chronicles 31:10, 13, and Nehemiah 11:11 (as ―ruler <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong>God‖). With the coming <strong>of</strong> Joshua ben Jozadek as the first ―anointed ruler‖ after the exile, theanointing <strong>of</strong> the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies began and lasted for the next 62 weeks -- as the author <strong>of</strong> thepassage construes it (cf. Exodus 29:36, 30:26-29, 40:9, Leviticus 8:10-11, and Numbers 7:1on the high priest anointing the tabernacle and the altar).Then come the 62 weeks which correspond to the post-exilic period, during which time thecity ―will be rebuilt, with its streets and moat, but in a time <strong>of</strong> distress‖. So within the periodfollowing 538 BC, the city <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem was rebuilt and expanded but it was also a ―time <strong>of</strong>distress‖ (btswq h-`tym), and this corresponds nicely to the bulk <strong>of</strong> ch. 11 <strong>of</strong> Daniel, whichdecribes the turbulent era <strong>of</strong> Persian wars with Greece, and then followed by the everendingstruggle for hegemony between Syria and Egypt, with Judea caught in the middle. The authorhowever has overestimated the actual length <strong>of</strong> the period by about 70 years. This is to beexpected since he used a stereotyped period <strong>of</strong> time (found in many other apocalyptic surveys<strong>of</strong> history) that was determined not through historical chronography but through an exegesis<strong>of</strong> Leviticus that multiplied Jeremiah‘s 70 years into 490 years. The author also shows a rathervague knowledge <strong>of</strong> the Persian period in comparison to the detailed knowledge <strong>of</strong> theSeleucid period in ch. 11, so we need not necessarily assume that his knowledge <strong>of</strong> thechronography <strong>of</strong> the Persian period is the same as our own (indeed, there is quite a bit o fvariation in estimating the length <strong>of</strong> the period between the Animal Apocalypse, the secondcentury BC Jewish historian Demetrius, Josephus, and the Seder Olam).Then at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the 62 weeks, ―an anointed one will be cut down, when the city isno longer his‖. This refers to the assassination <strong>of</strong> the last Zadokite high priest Onias III in 171BC (2 Maccabees 4:33-35), who had already been deposed <strong>of</strong> his <strong>of</strong>fice (hence the city has―no longer his‖). The parallel to this in ch. 11 is the reference to Onias III‘s demise in 11:22,62

Further Reading: When was Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖ first applied to Jesus?and the same event is paralleled in the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 90:8. This brought anend to the era <strong>of</strong> the legitimate priesthood and marked the beginning <strong>of</strong> the final desolationdecreed for the Temple (during the final, 70th week). The week starts with the ―coming ruler‖making ―a strong alliance‖ or ―covenant‖ with the polloi ―many‖. This corresponds with thepact Antiochus IV made with the Jewish Hellenizers in Daniel 11:30 and 1 Maccabees 1:11-15, 43, 52. 1 Maccabees mentions this pact being made just prior to Antiochus‘ firstcampaign to Egypt, and this fits with week-long (7 years) covenant made with the many bythe ―coming ruler‖ in Daniel 9. Then in 170 BC, Antiochus invaded Egypt in a campaign, thefirst stage <strong>of</strong> which ended with the victory near Pelusium and the second with the conquest <strong>of</strong>Egypt (cf. Daniel 11:25-27, 1 Maccabees 1:16-19), and on his return Antiochus plunderedthe Temple and burned the city (cf. Daniel 11:28, 1 Maccabees 1:21-28, 2 Maccabees 5:11-20).This final week however is subdivided into two 3 1/2 periods, with the final 3 1/2 periodhaving ―the soldiers <strong>of</strong> a coming ruler ruin the sanctuary‖, such that ―for half a week he willabolish sacrifice [the Tamid] and oblation and upon their place will be an appallingabomination‖. This wording is practically identical to 11:30-31 which says that ―forces <strong>of</strong> hiswill take their stand and ruin the sanctuary, they will abolish the sacrifice [the Tamid] and setup the appalling abomination‖. This wording is identical to the event in 1 Maccabees 1:45-54which notes that, after ―banning holocausts and sacrifices and libations from the sanctuary‖,―the king erected the desolating abomination above the altar‖ on Chislev 15 in 168 BC (cf. 2Maccabees 6:1-2 which refers to the same event, when Antiochus dedicated the Temple tothe Olympian Zeus). This is the same event from ch. 8, in which the little horn ―abolishedsacrifice [the Tamid] and overthrew the foundation <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary and the army too, and itput abomination on the sacrifice and flung truth to the ground‖ (8:11). The period <strong>of</strong> 3 1/2years is roughly parallel to the 3½ times <strong>of</strong> 7:25, the 2,300 evening and morning Tamids <strong>of</strong>8:14, the 3 1/2 times <strong>of</strong> 12:7 (which expire when the king meets his end), and the 1,290 daysin 12:11 from the time the sacrifice (the Tamid) is abolished and the appalling abomination iserected to the time the king is put to death. The actual length <strong>of</strong> time the sanctuary was defiledand the abomination was in place was about 3 years (ending on Chislev 15, 165 BC), andAntiochus died the following spring -- 7 years after the assassination <strong>of</strong> Onias III in 171 BC.Josephus thus wrote:―Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the plain <strong>of</strong> Susa, and heinforms us that God interpreted the appearance <strong>of</strong> this vision after thefollowing manner: He said that the ram signified the kingdom <strong>of</strong> theMedes and Persians, and the horns were those kings that were to reignin them ... that the he-goat signified that one should come and reignfrom the Greeks ... and that from among them there should arise acertain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, andshould take away our political government, and should spoil theTemple, and forbid the sacrifices to be <strong>of</strong>fered for three years. Andindeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these thingsunder Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel‘s vision‖(Josephus, Antiquities <strong>of</strong> the Jews 10.11.7).So the main thing, in contrast to later reappropriations <strong>of</strong> the seventy weeks prophecy, is torecognize that what is related in ch. 9 is parallel to similar visions in ch. 7, 8, and 11-12. Theyeach tell the same story, but with different emphases and language. But if you link up theparallels between the diferent visions, I think you get a consistent picture that reflects theinterpretation given here. Of course, I had to omit tons <strong>of</strong> supporting evidence from thestructure <strong>of</strong> the passage and other parallels, as well as evidence from the earliestinterpretations <strong>of</strong> the passage (although you can see how Hippolytus still incorporates much<strong>of</strong> the early understanding). And the interpretation given here is not perfect, and as I said, Idon‘t think we can ever know 100% what the author meant. But I think this is the bestexplanation in explaining all the evidence, it is faithful to the rest <strong>of</strong> the book and the spirit <strong>of</strong>63

Further Reading: When was Daniel‘s ―70 weeks‖ first applied to Jesus?this kind <strong>of</strong> apocalyptic survey (found in very similar form in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in theAnimal Apocalypse, and in the Testament <strong>of</strong> Levi), and it avoids the contrivances found inlater interpretations (some <strong>of</strong> these include conflating the first two time periods together,treating a portion <strong>of</strong> the text as parenthetical, coming up with ingenious attempts at computingthe time periods, detaching the final 70th week and placing it in the far future, etc.). The mainreasons why this understanding was abandoned and other interpretations sought are that (1)the Hasmoneans failed to realize the blessings foretold by Jeremiah and Jerusalem continuedto be ruined by the Gentiles, and (2) later chronography indicated that the length between thereturn from exile and the time <strong>of</strong> Antiochus IV was not 62 ―weeks‖, and so anotherAntiochus-like figure was expected.That is why Alexander Janaeus was thought to be the ―anointed one‖ that was cut <strong>of</strong>f andKing Herod was thought later to be the ―coming ruler‖....those were due to differentchronographical reckonings <strong>of</strong> the intervening 62 weeks. Josephus has several differentchronographical reckonings <strong>of</strong> the period which may in fact reflect different attempts byearlier chronographers to apply the 62 weeks <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9.64

FURTHER READING:WHO FIRST APPLIED DANIEL 9 TO THE CHRISTIAN‟S JESUS?JWN Post by “Leoloaia” 162 , 17 August 2010 163There are two very good surveys <strong>of</strong> the early interpretation <strong>of</strong> Daniel 9 in Judaism and earlyChristianity. Montgomery‘s classic 1927 commentary <strong>of</strong> Daniel has a lengthy discussion in pp. 390-401, laying out the major historical stages in the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the ―seventy weeks‖ vision.More recently, the most important scholarly source is William Adler‘s article ―The ApocalypticSurvey <strong>of</strong> History Adapted by Christians: Daniel‟s Prophecy <strong>of</strong> 70 Weeks” (pp. 201-238), publishedin The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (ed. by James VanderKam and WilliamAdler, 1996). I can‘t recommend this article enough.Adler thoroughly examines the interpretations in Josephus, Clement <strong>of</strong> Alexandria, Hippolytus,Julius Africanus, Eusebius, etc. and what he finds is very interesting: the early church fatherspreserved older Jewish interpretations <strong>of</strong> the prophecy as ―alternative‖ interpretations, and when youplace all these interpretations in historical order, one can readily see that Daniel 9 was reinterpretedover and over as circumstances changed; beyond its original Maccabean context, it was applied toHasmoneans like Aristobolus and Alexander Jannaeus, then Herod the Great, then later Vespasian(wrt the destruction <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem in AD 70), and even into the third century AD it was still used as anoracle to predict the future. It is likely that Christian interpretation gravitated towards seeing it as afulfilled prophecy in order to discourage further prognostication (as the chronographic framework wasespecially amenable to date setting).Along the way, all sorts <strong>of</strong> liberties were taken with the text and various different interpretivetraditions arose, all <strong>of</strong> which are quite fascinating. For a long time, the messianic figure was neither <strong>of</strong>the two anointed ones mentioned in the text but the (Gentile) ―coming ruler‖ in v. 27, whose forcesdefile the Temple with the appalling horror (―abomination <strong>of</strong> desolation‖ in Greek). The originalunderstanding <strong>of</strong> course (as in ch. 11 <strong>of</strong> Daniel and in 1 Maccabees) is that the coming ruler wasAntiochus Epiphanes, and the anointed one ―cut <strong>of</strong>f‖ prior to this was the high priest Onias III (whosemurder is related in Daniel 11:22, 1 Enoch 90:8, and 2 Maccabees 4:33-35).Later, the ―coming ruler‖ was interpreted to be Herod who had murdered the high priest Hyrcanus II(last <strong>of</strong> the Hasmoneans). Then in the first century AD, the ―coming ruler‖ was interpreted to beVespasian and the cut-<strong>of</strong>f ―anointed one‖ was Ananus, the last high priest before Jerusalem‘sdestruction. This was Josephus‘ own interpretation and he acclaimed Vespasian as the messiahprophesied in scripture (who indeed became ―world ruler‖ on Jewish soil). The synoptic gospels havea related interpretation, seeing Daniel 9 as foreseeing the events <strong>of</strong> AD 66-70, identifying the―abomination <strong>of</strong> desolation‖ with the Roman forces <strong>of</strong> Vespasian and general Titus (which desolatedthe sanctuary as the ―seventy weeks‖ prophecy ), thereby associating Vespasian with the ―comingruler‖ <strong>of</strong> the prophecy.There is no trace <strong>of</strong> a Christian interpretation associating Daniel 9 with Jesus Christ until the earlythird century AD. The early interpretation <strong>of</strong> Hippolytus retains many features <strong>of</strong> early Jewishexegesis <strong>of</strong> the text. In harmony with the MT and in contrast with the very Theodotionic rendering hewas citing, he distinguished between the two anointed figures and recognized that a large span <strong>of</strong> time(62 weeks) separated the two from each other. He recognized that the reference is to the highpriesthood <strong>of</strong> the Temple and he identified the first anointed figure as Jeshua ben-Jozadek (which inthe opinion <strong>of</strong> most scholars is what the author <strong>of</strong> Hebrew Daniel intended). But he obtained achristological interpretation by following the Theodotionic text which has, instead <strong>of</strong> a second―anointed‖ being cut <strong>of</strong>f at the end <strong>of</strong> the 62 weeks, a ceasing <strong>of</strong> the ―anointing‖ which he construed162 Although ―Leolaia‖ kindly has given permission for her opinions to be reproduced, this does not infer she isin agreement with all views expressed in this <strong>Critique</strong>.163http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/197556/1/Who-first-applied-Daniel-9-to-the-Christians-Jesus (accessed October 2010)65

Further Reading: Who first applied Daniel 9 to the Christian‘s Jesus?as occurring when the Temple veil was ripped during the crucifixion. This is quite a differentinterpretation than the one espoused by the Society. The latter depends on the Theodotionic conflation<strong>of</strong> the two anointed figures, lumping together the initial 7 with the later 62 weeks.The idea that this prophecy about the desolation <strong>of</strong> the Temple could be used as a chronographicaldatum to date the arrival <strong>of</strong> the Messiah arose later in the third century AD, cf. especially the variedchronographical schemes pursued by Julius Africanus. However even Eusebius in the fourth centuryAD still advanced the interpretation that the ―anointed one, a ruler‖ from Daniel 9:26 was meant tosignify the high priesthood <strong>of</strong> the Temple from Jeshua to Hyrcanus II (which, like many earlyinterpretations, does not make chronological sense <strong>of</strong> the seventy weeks), brought to an end by Herodthe Great, the ―coming ruler‖.66

FURTHER READING:ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ONTHE HEBREW UNDERSTANDING OF “MESSIAHThe word messiah—or mashiach in Hebrew—occurs thirty-eight times in the Hebrew Bible, (whichroughly corresponds to the Old Testament). The word (which in Greek translation is Khristos) means―the anointed one‖. 164------It was a term that was originally used about some Jewish kings, priests, or prophets, but over timecame to symbolize a presumptive ruler, anointed by the Lord, who would come and bring prosperityto the people <strong>of</strong> Israel. The more difficult the times were for the Jews, the more they placed their hopein this ―prince <strong>of</strong> peace,‖ as he is called in the Book <strong>of</strong> Isaiah. ...The search for messiah figures, and the appearance <strong>of</strong> self-acclaimed ones, escalates with the march<strong>of</strong> the Romans into the realm <strong>of</strong> the Jews during the first century BCE. And the presumptive messiahincreasingly comes to be defined as a person who— apart from his creating peace on earth—shall reestablishthe people <strong>of</strong> Israel and their land, restoring it to its position and condition in the time <strong>of</strong>King David. In some cases, the messiah figure is described as a military leader.This is the case in, for example, the Dead Sea scrolls (written between approximately the third centuryBCE and 68 CE). ... In several fragments there is talk <strong>of</strong> a messiah figure (one <strong>of</strong> two or three) whoshall come ―with sword,‖ a prince <strong>of</strong> the clan <strong>of</strong> David who shall defeat the powers <strong>of</strong> evil on earthand lead the people to the new time. 165------By the first century, Jews for the most part expected the Messiah to be like David, who would triumphin the last days by defeating and expelling the occupying Roman army. But Jesus did not posturehimself in this warlike manner, at least not in the physical sense. He enters Jerusalem riding a donkey,not on a great white stallion waving a sword over his head. At his arrest, instead <strong>of</strong> seeking physicalprotection, he has Peter sheath his sword and then reminds Peter <strong>of</strong> his divine mission. 166------So ‗Yahweh‘s (or ―my‖, ―thine‖, ―his‖) anointed‘ came to mean ‗the King <strong>of</strong> Israel‘. ...It is veryremarkable that in Isa. the term is used only once, and then <strong>of</strong> the Persian king, Cyrus, Isa. 45.1. In avery obscure passage in Dan. (9.25f.), it is quite uncertain who is meant by ‗an anointed one, a prince‘(AV, the Messiah the Prince) and ‗an anointed one‘ (AV, Messiah), but the latter phrase probablyrefers to the high priest Onias III, deposed in 175 BC, and so the former may refer to Jeshua, the firsthigh priest after the restoration (cf. Ezra 3.2). ...Some <strong>of</strong> the passages in the Pss. which originally referred to an actual king <strong>of</strong> Judah were interpreted‗messianically‘. But the earliest evidence for this interpretation is in the NT; it is not found in extantJewish writings earlier than the 3rd cent, AD.In Jewish writings <strong>of</strong> the period between the OT and the NT, refs. to the Messiah are remarkablyfew. 167------In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance <strong>of</strong> Christianity, there was no expectation <strong>of</strong> a sufferingMessiah. ...164 The Jesus Mystery, page 18, Lena Einhorn165 The Jesus Mystery, pages 18, 19 Lena Einhorn166 Mounce‟s Complete Expository Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Old and New Testament Words, page 109, William Mounce,General Editor, Zondervan167 A Theological Word Book <strong>of</strong> the Bible, pages 44-45, (art. ―Christ‖ by J. Y. Campbell), edited by AlanRichardson D.D.67

Further reading: Additional references on the Hebrew understanding <strong>of</strong> ―messiahSome Jews thought that God would make good on his promise by restoring an anointed king to ruleIsrael when he was finished punishing his people for their disobedience. This would be the Messiah,the newly anointed one, a great warrior-king like David who would overthrow the enemies <strong>of</strong> Israeland establish Israel once again as a sovereign state in the land. ... That the Messiah would be apowerful warrior-king was the expectation <strong>of</strong> many Jews in Jesus‘ day. ...All the Jewish expectations had in common was this: the future Messiah would be a figure <strong>of</strong>grandeur and real power, who would overthrow God‘s enemies in a show <strong>of</strong> strength and rule overGod‘s people, and the other nations <strong>of</strong> earth, with a rod <strong>of</strong> iron. 168------In Israel in early times high priests (Exod. 29.7) and kings were anointed with oil; this was a sign thatGod had chosen them for their <strong>of</strong>fices, and it is recorded <strong>of</strong> both Saul and David that, when they hadbeen anointed, the Spirit <strong>of</strong> Yahweh came upon them mightily (I Sam. 10.6ff.-16.13). 169168 Jesus Interrupted, pages 228 – 233, Bart Ehrman169 A Theological Word Book <strong>of</strong> the Bible, pages 44, (art. ―Christ‖ by J. Y. Campbell), edited by AlanRichardson D.D.68

FURTHER READING:EMANUEL TOV ON THE MASORETIC TEXT (MT)The name Masoretic Text refers to a group <strong>of</strong> manuscripts which are closely related to each other.Many <strong>of</strong> the elements <strong>of</strong> these manuscripts including their final form were determined in the earlyMiddle Ages, but they continue a much earlier tradition. The name Masoretic Text was given to thisgroup because <strong>of</strong> the apparatus <strong>of</strong> the Masorah attached to it. ...As a rule, the term Masoretic Text is limited to a mere segment <strong>of</strong> the representatives <strong>of</strong> the textualtradition <strong>of</strong> [MT], namely, that textual tradition which was given its final form by Aaron Ben Asher <strong>of</strong>the Tiberian group <strong>of</strong> the Masoretes. ...The term Masoretic Text is imprecise for another reason, too, for [MT] is not attested in any onesingle source. Rather, [MT] is an abstract unit reflected in various sources which differ from eachother in many details. Moreover, it is difficult to know whether there ever existed a single text whichserved as the archetype <strong>of</strong> [MT]. 170The biblical text has been transmitted in many ancient and medieval sources which are known to usfrom modern editions in different languages: ... All <strong>of</strong> these textual witnesses differ from each other toa greater or lesser extent. Since no textual source contains what could be called ―the‖ biblical text, aserious involvement in biblical studies clearly necessitates the study <strong>of</strong> all sources, including thedifferences between them. The comparison and analysis <strong>of</strong> these textual differences hold a centralplace within textual criticism.Textual differences are also reflected in modern editions <strong>of</strong> the traditional text <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible,the so-called Masoretic Text (MT), since these editions are based on different manuscripts. ...Similar discrepancies between the various ancient witnesses are even reflected in the moderntranslations. 171One would not have expected differences between the printed editions <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, for if afully unified textual tradition would have been possible at any one given period, it would certainlyseem to be so after the invention <strong>of</strong> printing. Such is not the case, however, since all the editions <strong>of</strong>the Hebrew Bible, which actually are editions <strong>of</strong> [the MT], go back to different medieval manuscripts<strong>of</strong> that tradition, or combinations <strong>of</strong> such manuscripts, so that the editions also necessarily differ fromeach other. Moreover, these editions reflect not only the various medieval manuscripts, but also thepersonal views <strong>of</strong> the different editors. Furthermore, each edition contains a certain number <strong>of</strong>printing errors. Therefore, there does not exist any one edition which agrees in all <strong>of</strong> its details withanother, except for photographically reproduced editions or editions based on the same electronic(computer encoded) text. Some editions even differ from each other in their subsequent printings(which sometimes amount to different editions), without even informing the readers. ...It should be remembered that the number <strong>of</strong> differences between the various editions is very small.Moreover, all <strong>of</strong> them concern minimal, even minute details <strong>of</strong> the text, and most affect the meaning<strong>of</strong> the text in only a very limited way. 172Most <strong>of</strong> the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the nexthave been corrupted in one way or another. For modern compositions the process <strong>of</strong> textualtransmission from the writing <strong>of</strong> the autograph until its final printing is relatively short, so that thepossibilities <strong>of</strong> its corruption are limited.In ancient texts, however, such as the Hebrew Bible, these corruptions (the technical term for variousforms <strong>of</strong> ―mistakes‖) are found more frequently because <strong>of</strong> the difficult physical conditions <strong>of</strong> thecopying and the length <strong>of</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> transmission, usually extending until the period <strong>of</strong> printing inrecent centuries.170 Textual Criticism <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, pages 22-23171 ibid, Tov, page 2172 ibid., Tov, page 369

Further reading: Emanuel Tov on ―messiah‖The number <strong>of</strong> factors which could have created corruptions is large:the transition from the ―early‖ Hebrew to Assyrian (―square‖) script,unclear handwriting,unevenness in the surface <strong>of</strong> the material (leather or papyrus) on which the text was written,graphically similar letters which were <strong>of</strong>ten confused,the lack <strong>of</strong> vocalization, andunclear boundaries between words in early texts, etc. 173A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. Incontradistinction to mistakes, which are not controllable, the insertion <strong>of</strong> corrections and changesderives from a conscious effort to change the text in minor and major details, including the insertion<strong>of</strong> novel ideas. Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses. ...Corruptions as well as various forms <strong>of</strong> scribal intervention (changes, corrections, etc.) are thusevidenced in all textual witnesses <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew Bible, including the group <strong>of</strong> texts now called the(medieval) Masoretic Text as well as in its predecessors, the proto-Masoretic texts. Those who areunaware <strong>of</strong> the details <strong>of</strong> textual criticism may think that one should not expect any corruptions in[MT] or any other sacred text, since these texts were meticulously written and transmitted. ...Indeed, the scrupulous approach <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>of</strong>erim and Masoretes is manifest in their counting <strong>of</strong> all theletters and words <strong>of</strong> [MT]. Therefore, it is seemingly unlikely that they would have corrupted the textor even corrected it. Yet, in spite <strong>of</strong> their precision, even the manuscripts which were written andvocalized by the Masoretes contain corruptions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, theMasoretes, and before them the s<strong>of</strong>erim, acted in a relatively late stage <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> thebiblical text, and before they had put their meticulous principles into practice, the text alreadycontained corruptions and had been tampered with during that earlier period when scribes did not asvet treat the text with such reverence. Therefore, paradoxically, the s<strong>of</strong>erim and Masoretes carefullypreserved a text that was already corrupted. ...The preceding analysis has surmised that [MT], too, contains occasional errors. In our analysis <strong>of</strong> thewitnesses <strong>of</strong> the biblical text no exception is made in this regard for [MT], because that text, like allother texts, may have been corrupted in the course <strong>of</strong> the scribal transmission. 174One <strong>of</strong> the postulates <strong>of</strong> biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives(manuscripts, editions) <strong>of</strong> what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the ―originaltext‖ <strong>of</strong> the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept <strong>of</strong> an ―original text‖ necessarilyremains vague, differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages <strong>of</strong> the biblicaltext will continue to be recognized. Moreover, even were we to surmise that [MT] reflects the―original‖ form <strong>of</strong> the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this ―originaltext‖, since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by manywitnesses.Similar problems arise when one compares [MT] with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumranscrolls and the putative Hebrew source <strong>of</strong> the individual ancient translations. We do not know which<strong>of</strong> all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that[MT] reflects the original text <strong>of</strong> the biblical books better than the other texts. 175The differences between the early texts are greater than those between the late sources, as the desire totransmit the texts with precision increased in the course <strong>of</strong> the years. In other words, the scope <strong>of</strong> thedifferences between the medieval manuscripts is much smaller than that between the early scrolls. 176173 ibid., Tov, page 8174 ibid., page 9175 ibid., Tov, page 11176 ibid., Tov, page 2770

Further reading: Emanuel Tov on ―messiah‖There thus existed a strong desire for textual standardization, but this desire could not erase thedifferences already existing between the texts. The wish to preserve a unified textual tradition thusremained an abstract ideal which could not be accomplished in reality. Moreover, despite the scribes‘meticulous care, changes, corrections, and mistakes were added to the internal differences alreadyexisting between the members <strong>of</strong> the [MT] group. The various texts from the Second Temple periodthus differed from each other, but in the course <strong>of</strong> the centuries, the number <strong>of</strong> these differencesdecreased rather than increased. 177The biblical text developed and changed much throughout many generations <strong>of</strong> copying andtransmission, as can be seen from the many differences between the textual witnesses. 178177 ibid., Tov, page 29178 ibid., Tov, page 19971

FURTHER READING:INTERPRETING PROPHECIESProphecy is a special revelation <strong>of</strong> the divine will, and consists essentially <strong>of</strong> counsel, repro<strong>of</strong>, andwarning. The element <strong>of</strong> prediction in prophecy is designed to afford a view <strong>of</strong> the things <strong>of</strong> time inthe light <strong>of</strong> eternity, to alert the church for effective action at appropriate times, to facilitate personalpreparation for the final crisis, to vindicate God and leave man without excuse on the day <strong>of</strong>judgment, and to attest the validity <strong>of</strong> prophecy as a whole. History and predictive prophecy beingcomplementary, the student <strong>of</strong> prophecy must be an equally diligent student <strong>of</strong> history. A clearconcept <strong>of</strong> the Christian philosophy <strong>of</strong> history, a true historical perspective, a general understanding<strong>of</strong> the entire scope <strong>of</strong> history, with emphasis upon the history <strong>of</strong> Bible times and other areas touchedupon by prophecy, are vital to the valid interpretation <strong>of</strong> both history and prophecy.The hand <strong>of</strong> God is to be found in all history, guiding particularly the affairs <strong>of</strong> those nations whosecareer most directly affects the accomplishment <strong>of</strong> His eternal purpose. Only when nations directlyaffect the outworking <strong>of</strong> His purpose are they given a prominent place in prophecy. At times Godtakes the initiative in history, ordaining a certain course <strong>of</strong> events; again, He takes the defensive,permitting evil to run its course more or less unhindered; eventually, He interposes to bring the course<strong>of</strong> evil to a halt.History may not be used to interpret prophecy; that is, historical events may not be considered thefulfillment <strong>of</strong> prophecy simply because they seem to fit the requirements <strong>of</strong> a given prediction.Rather, Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture; that is, the fundamental nature <strong>of</strong> the prophecyand its fulfillment must be determined first. Only then may the specific fulfillment <strong>of</strong> prophecy besought in history. Isolated historical events may never be forced into a preconceived pattern <strong>of</strong>interpretation. Rather, objective inquiry is to be made with respect to the details <strong>of</strong> prophecy and tothe materials <strong>of</strong> history which seem to be related to it. Time factors <strong>of</strong> prophecy are <strong>of</strong>ten basic to acorrect interpretation, and may usually be determined on the basis <strong>of</strong> internal evidence within theprophecy itself. The interpretation <strong>of</strong> yet unfulfilled prophecy must be limited to the clear, specificstatements <strong>of</strong> Inspiration. In view <strong>of</strong> the fact that current events ever loom large in contemporary,thinking, caution is necessary lest they be mistaken for the fulfillment <strong>of</strong> certain predictions,particularly <strong>of</strong> those which tend to be obscure.Predictions <strong>of</strong> weal and woe to occur prior to the close <strong>of</strong> probation are usually conditional in nature,due to the operation <strong>of</strong> man‘s power <strong>of</strong> choice; those following that event are contingent upon the will<strong>of</strong> God alone and are therefore unconditional in nature. Most prophetic messages were originallydesigned to meet the specific needs <strong>of</strong> God‘s people at the time they were given, but in the providence<strong>of</strong> God they have been recorded and preserved, and may be <strong>of</strong> equal or even greater value to thechurch today. Due to history repeating itself, in principle— similar causes producing similar results—and to the substitution <strong>of</strong> spiritual for literal Israel in the divine plan, many prophecies have a dualapplication, that is, a primary one to literal Israel and another, based upon it, to spiritual Israel. ManyOld Testament predictions made conditionally to literal Israel will either not be fulfilled at all becausethe requisite conditions were never met, or are to be fulfilled in principle, though not necessarily in alldetails, to spiritual Israel only. The fulfillment <strong>of</strong> some prophecies has been progressive, with a partialfulfillment at one time, and one or more successive and increasingly more complete and meaningfulfulfillments at later times. It is necessary to ascertain the prophetic perspective <strong>of</strong> the New Testamentwriters. In general, Old Testament prophecy must first be understood in its primary application toliteral Israel before the validity <strong>of</strong> a derived application to spiritual Israel may be established. Onlywhere Inspiration so indicates may such derived applications be made with certainty; whereInspiration is silent, it is well to reserve judgment. New Testament prophecy is <strong>of</strong>ten based onhistorical or prophetic parallels in the Old Testament, either stated or implied, and is usually clarifiedby comparison with them. 179179 ―Problems in Bible Translation‖, pages 102-10472

FURTHER READING:RANGE OF PRESENT-DAY INTERPRETATIONSThe problems regarding the exegesis <strong>of</strong> Dan 9: 24-27 are <strong>of</strong> two kinds. They have to do with (1) thedifficulty <strong>of</strong> the text and (2) the multiplicity <strong>of</strong> the interpretations raised.As for the first problem, the density <strong>of</strong> the passage, the extreme singularity <strong>of</strong> its words andexpressions, and the complexity <strong>of</strong> its syntax constitute rather serious obstacles. Moreover, theimportant divergences between the two basic versions as represented in the LXX and Theodotion donot permit us to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the text. The Theodotion version is clearerhere, and its text tends to support the MT; yet where it diverges from the latter (e.g., in thepunctuation regarding the counting <strong>of</strong> the weeks), it is the only witness in opposition to the MT. Asfor the Peshitta, it seems to have been revised on the basis <strong>of</strong> the LXX at many points, and I hesitatetherefore to consider it as an independent witness along with the LXX. (At any rate, the text appearsto be altered in this particular passage <strong>of</strong> the Peshitta, for we can note differences from both the LXXand the MT.)Regarding the second kind <strong>of</strong> problem, the variety <strong>of</strong> theological applications may be roughly dividedinto three categories:1. The Symbolical Interpretation. Primarily because <strong>of</strong> the references in the passage to the particularnumbers 7, 3, 70, etc., the prophecy has been viewed by some scholars as being a mere poem mainlyconcerned with a Heilsgeschichte divided into three steps. The first part (7 heptads) starts at thecoming <strong>of</strong> Cyrus (538 B.C.) and leads to the first Advent; the second part (62 heptads) leads to thesecond Advent and covers the history <strong>of</strong> the visible Church; and the last part (1 heptad) covers thetime <strong>of</strong> tribulation and is concerned with the invisible church.2. The Dispensationalist Interpretation. Dispensationalist theologians have also viewed the prophecyas a salvation history divided into three parts. Their first part comprises 69 weeks which areunderstood as weeks <strong>of</strong> years. Some interpret this to mean a period <strong>of</strong> 476 years from the seconddecree <strong>of</strong> Artaxerxes in 445 B.C. to A.D. 32, alleged as the year <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ triumphal entry intoJerusalem and <strong>of</strong> his death. Others, with a different beginning point, suggest a period <strong>of</strong> 483 yearsterminating in A.D. 26, the date accepted for Jesus‘ baptism. In either case, the last week has beenmoved ahead to the end-time, in conjunction with Christ‘s second advent. The church era comes inbetween.3. The Historical-Critical Interpretation. Adherents <strong>of</strong> this position hold that Daniel‘s propheciesdescribe the events <strong>of</strong> the time <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes and were written after the events as a record,not as a prediction. The time span covered by this ―prophecy‖ is reckoned in terms <strong>of</strong> weeks <strong>of</strong> yearsand is divided into three parts. A typical example <strong>of</strong> the chronology in this view is that the first 7weeks (49 years) start at the fall <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem (587/6 B.C.) and lead to the fall <strong>of</strong> Babylon at thedecree <strong>of</strong> the ―Messiah‖ Cyrus (539/8 B.C.); then follow the 62 weeks (434 years), which reach to themurder <strong>of</strong> Onias III (171/0 B.C.); and finally comes the last week (7 years), which is concluded by therededication <strong>of</strong> the Temple desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes at the middle <strong>of</strong> this week.4. The Historical-Messianic Interpretation. This is considered as the traditional Christianinterpretation. It has been advocated by the Church fathers and is still supported today by Protestantand Catholic scholars. The first two divisions <strong>of</strong> the seventy weeks (7 + 62) start in the 7th year <strong>of</strong>Artaxerxes and terminate in the year <strong>of</strong> the baptism <strong>of</strong> Jesus. The last week is divided into two parts,the first one ending at Christ‘s crucifixion and the last one at the stoning <strong>of</strong> Stephen. (Dates given bysome scholars for these events are 457 B.C. and A.D. 27, 31, and 34, respectively.) 180180 The Seventy Weeks <strong>of</strong> Dan 9: an Exegetical Study, pages 1-3, by Jacques Doukhan (Seminaire Adventiste duSaleve Collonges-sous-Saleve, France, 1979)73

FURTHER READING:COMMENTS FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF VERSION 1The interpretation the Society claims is self-evident is actually not supported by the text itself. Thepurpose and intent <strong>of</strong> [Daniel] ch. 9 rather comes into focus when it is understood that it is talkingabout the same thing that the visions in ch. 8 and 10-11 are concerned with: the sanctity <strong>of</strong> the Templein the post-exilic period, climaxing in the defiling <strong>of</strong> the Temple under Antiochus Epiphanes (the―little horn‖ from the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Greece in ch. 8).The question <strong>of</strong> ―how long‖ from [Daniel] ch. 8 receives a specific answer in the periodizationscheme <strong>of</strong> ch. 9, and the question <strong>of</strong> ―why‖ the Temple remains in such a state so long after the returnfrom Exile is also answered by the angel.The scheme the author adopts is intelligible because it is interpretive <strong>of</strong> both Jeremiah and Leviticus(it uses Leviticus to interpret Jeremiah), such that the 70 years is expanded into a duration <strong>of</strong> 490years on account <strong>of</strong> the ―sevenfold‖ curse (the curse alluded to in Daniel 9:11). This is a time perioddetermined not by actual chronological concerns but ideological ones.[Daniel] chapter [9] is not concerned with the timing <strong>of</strong> the arrival <strong>of</strong> the Messiah. There is nothingabout this in the prayer that Daniel gives; he is asking for the curses against Jerusalem and its Templeto come to an end. It is the same with ch. 8, which inquires on when the defiling <strong>of</strong> the sanctuarywould come to an end so that it would be reconsecrated (v. 13-14).The Society‘s interpretation in fact has the seventy weeks end with the Temple, if not yet ruins (soonto be in AD 70), being rendered wholly illegitimate to God, whereas v. 24 makes clear that the periodis one in which the holy city atones for its transgression, ending with its being brought to a state <strong>of</strong>everlasting righteousness (again, compare with 8:14).The messianic interpretation is forced from the text by the NWT rendering <strong>of</strong> Hebrew mshych as―Messiah‖ (the only place in the OT where the NWT renders the word this way in the text), and fromthe conflation <strong>of</strong> the two ―anointed‖ figures in the text into a single Messiah. The term usually has themeaning ―anointed one‖ applied to kings and priests in the OT and within the context <strong>of</strong> thediscussion in ch. 8-9 <strong>of</strong> the Temple, a sacerdotal sense is manifest here (especially with respect to theanointing <strong>of</strong> the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies in v. 24).The conflation <strong>of</strong> the two anointed figures, encouraged by Theodotion‘s version (which replaced theLXX in early Christianity), is not permitted by the MT‘s punctuation, which has a period <strong>of</strong> some 62weeks separating the two anointed figures apart. This is supported by the immediate context andsyntax, as well as by the early interpretations <strong>of</strong> the text found in Hippolytus and others (in spite <strong>of</strong>the fact that their translation was that <strong>of</strong> Theodotion).The duration is that <strong>of</strong> the post-exilic high priesthood, marked <strong>of</strong>f by its institution after the exile (thecoming <strong>of</strong> the anointed one in v. 25) and its end at the start <strong>of</strong> the final week (= the deposing andassassination <strong>of</strong> the high priest, cf. 11:22). The Testament <strong>of</strong> Levi, for instance, viewed the seventyweeks as a time <strong>of</strong> corruption for the post-exilic priesthood.What is especially conspicuous is that the Society‘s interpretation relates the cessation <strong>of</strong> sacrifice and<strong>of</strong>fering, which was effected by Jesus‘ willing submitting to crucifixion in AD 33 (<strong>of</strong>fering ceased inthe sense that it was no longer acceptable to God). But within the context <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew apocalypse,the cessation <strong>of</strong> sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering was effected by the ―little horn‖, the Gentile king who was anantagonist against God and his Temple (see 8:11-13, 11:31).74

Further reading: Comments following the release <strong>of</strong> version 1Indeed the reference to the ―armed forces who desecrate the sanctuary fortress and abolish the dailysacrifice and set up the abomination <strong>of</strong> desolation‖ in 11:31 is clearly parallel to the references in9:26-27 to the ―people <strong>of</strong> the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary‖, with theruler ―putting an end to sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering‖ and ―setting up‖ the abomination(s). Within thecontext <strong>of</strong> Daniel, the one who puts an end to <strong>of</strong>fering is a villainous figure, not messianic. And it isnot clear to me who the ―ruler who is to come‖ is supposed to be in the Watchtower interpretation.But reading [Daniel] ch. 9 in connection with ch. 8 and 10-11, this figure is clearly cognate to the―little horn‖ <strong>of</strong> ch. 8 and the villianous king <strong>of</strong> ch. 11.The Watchtower interpretation also vaguely connects the final desolation <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem (and the settingup <strong>of</strong> the abomination <strong>of</strong> desolation) in 9:27 with the destruction <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem in AD 70. This drawson the interpretation <strong>of</strong> ch. 9 and 11 found in the synoptic gospels, which related the terminus <strong>of</strong> theseventy weeks to Jewish Revolt and war. But there is no explanation <strong>of</strong> how to stretch this week allthe way to AD 70 (which already is interpreted as terminating with the conversion <strong>of</strong> Cornelius)without assuming some sort <strong>of</strong> gap (a gap is also common in modern dispensationalistinterpretations), though there is no indication whatsoever <strong>of</strong> a gap in the text.Does that mean that other Christian religions do not apply that prophecy to Jesus’ministry/birth/death? (question by “pirata”)Oh no, there are similar interpretations in other modern Christian groups. The Society certainly didnot innovate anything new in following this interpretation. They build on interpretations stretchingback to the church fathers <strong>of</strong> the third and fourth centuries AD. Even as late as that time, there wereChristians who used the seventy weeks oracle as a means for fixing the date <strong>of</strong> the end <strong>of</strong> the world.Viewing the oracle as an already fulfilled prophecy certainly helped to mitigate against suchspeculations. 181181 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/200437/1/Daniele28099s-e2809c70-weekse2809d-in-the-WT-book-e2809cThe-Bible-e28093-Gode28099s-Word-or-Mane28099s-e2809d(posted 21 October 2010, accessed 24 October 2010)75

I could note a few things:FURTHER READING:MORE SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS BY “LEOLAIA”1) This is not a prophecy <strong>of</strong> ―when the Messiah would come‖, it is an oracle concerned with howlong the Temple and the city <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem would remain in a state <strong>of</strong> disgrace (culminatingwith the desolation <strong>of</strong> the Temple described in the preceding chapter and in ch. 11).2) There isn‘t one ―messiah‖ (anointed one, i.e. the high priest <strong>of</strong> the Temple) but two, with thefirst arriving at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 62 weeks and with the second departing at the end <strong>of</strong> the62 weeks.3) The oracle expands Jeremiah‘s original 70 years into 490 years on account <strong>of</strong> the sevenfold―curse‖ written in the Law <strong>of</strong> Moses, and the author starts the 490 years with the ―word torestore and rebuild‖ Jerusalem; this indicates that the ―word to restore and rebuild‖ was notsometime later than the putative time <strong>of</strong> writing (the first year <strong>of</strong> Darius the Mede) but priorto it, at the start <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah‘s seventy years.4) The ―word to restore and rebuild‖ is in fact a near verbatim allusion to Jeremiah, whichcontained exactly such a promise by the ―word <strong>of</strong> YHWH‖ and in v. 2 the author alreadyrefers to ―the word <strong>of</strong> YHWH given to Jeremiah the prophet‖.5) It is thus not a novel prophecy that Jerusalem and its Temple would be restored but arepetition <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah‘s.6) The 360-day Jewish schematic calendar was fixed to equinoxes and solstices and thus did notlose 5 days a year …7) There is no reference to crucifixion per se in the oracle.8) The events attributed to Titus correspond to the last half-week <strong>of</strong> the 70 weeks which does notfit into … [a] chronological scheme [related to Jesus as the ―Messiah‖] unless one postponesthe 70th week (a contrivance imposed on the text from interpretation).9) The Christian interpretation also ignores the exact correspondence between the ―people <strong>of</strong> acoming ruler‖ in the seventy weeks oracle and the ―forces <strong>of</strong> the king <strong>of</strong> the north‖ in ch. 11(which relates to the historical actions <strong>of</strong> Antiochus IV Epiphanes).10) The oracle was most likely written during the Maccabean period (not in 538 BC) as mostcommentators recognize. 182But there was clearly 1 person that was expected to be Messiah. You can‘t find the notion in either theOT or the NT that 2 messiahs were expected. Jesus was specifically asked, ―Are you the Messiah?‖ Iknow that certain Jewish cults believe in 2 Messiahs, but it‘s not a clear teaching in the OT. … Theusual OT sense [<strong>of</strong> a ―messiah‖] is that the term referred to anointed priests and kings. Here the termhas reference to the priesthood (cf. the prior reference to the anointing <strong>of</strong> the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies in v. 24,which is sacerdotal). The chapter, as well as the one preceding it, is concerned with the condition <strong>of</strong>the sanctuary and its defilement and desolation. 183Critical scholarship however has shown that the christological interpretation impedes rather thanadvances an accurate understanding <strong>of</strong> the authorial purpose and intent. A contextual reading that isguided by the immediate literary context (specifically ch. 8 and ch. 10-11) and the cited intertexts(Leviticus and Jeremiah), and especially in light <strong>of</strong> the historical context (as related in 1-2Maccabees and Josephus) leads to a understanding <strong>of</strong> the text that respects the parallels to the other182 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201747/2/Biblical-Prophecies-written-BEFORE-fulfillment183 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201747/2/Biblical-Prophecies-written-BEFORE-fulfillment76

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by Leolaiavisions and history and avoids the contrivances and problems that more eisegetical readings haveproduced. We will never know exactly what the author had in mind (and most scholars disagree overvarious details). 184Since we were talking about the meaning <strong>of</strong> the Hebrew term translated here ―messiah‖ in the NWT(ONLY here, as elsewhere it is always translated ―anointed‖) and some other Christian translations, itis worthy to note that the earliest Christian interpretation <strong>of</strong> the term in this passage understood that ithad reference to the priests <strong>of</strong> the Temple (this partially preserves the original sacerdotalunderstanding <strong>of</strong> the oracle, attested in such writings as the Testament <strong>of</strong> Levi).―Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having dividedthem into two parts, in order that what was spoken by him to theprophet might be better understood, he proceeds thus, ‗Until khristosthe prince there shall be seven weeks,‘ which make forty-nine years.It was in the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things inBabylon. Hence, the forty-nine years added to the twenty-one, makeup the seventy years, <strong>of</strong> which the blessed Jeremiah said that thesanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befellthem under Nebuchadnezzar, and after these things the people willreturn, and sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering will be presented, when khristos istheir prince. Now what khristos does he mean but Jesus son <strong>of</strong>Josedek, who then returned with the people and in the 70th year uponthe rebuilding <strong>of</strong> the temple <strong>of</strong>fered sacrifices according to the Law?For all kings and priests are called khristoi‖ (Hippolytus, On Daniel2.13-14).―At that time, ‗an anointed one, a ruler‘, prophesied by Daniel, cameto an end. For up to Herod, there were ‗anointed ones, princes‘. Thesewere the high priests, who presided over the Jewish people,beginning with the restoration <strong>of</strong> the temple during the reign <strong>of</strong>Darius in the 65th Olympiad, and lasting to Hyrcanus in the 186thOlympiad [i.e. 36-33 BC]‖ (Eusebius, Chronici Canones 373-374).Now what is found in the immediate context? The precedent for the term mshych ―anointed one‖ in v.25-26 is found in the preceding verse:―Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holycity, to finish transgression, to bring sins <strong>of</strong> completion and to expiateiniquity, to seal vision and to anoint the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies‖.The OT has many references <strong>of</strong> anointing the altar and the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies in the tabernacle andTemple:―Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it toconsecrate it‖ (Exodus 29:36).―Use the oil to anoint the Tent <strong>of</strong> Meeting, the ark <strong>of</strong> testimony, thetable and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar <strong>of</strong>incense, the altar <strong>of</strong> burnt <strong>of</strong>fering ... you shall consecrate them sothey will be most holy‖ (Exodus 30:26-29)―Take the anointing oil and anoint the tabernacle and everything in it,consecrate it and all its furnishings and it will be holy‖ (Exodus40:9).184 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201747/2/Biblical-Prophecies-written-BEFORE-fulfillment77

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by Leolaia―Moses took the chrism and anointed the tabernacle and everythingin it to consecrate them, he sprinkled the altar seven times andanointed the altar‖ (Leviticus 8:10-11).―On the day Moses finished setting up the tabernacle he anointed andconsecrated it‖ (Numbers 7:1), etc.Only the high priest could anoint the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies and priests were referred to as ―anointed‖(mshych, khristos) in the relevant literature (see, for instance, Leviticus 4:3, 2 Maccabees 1:10). Seealso Zechariah 4:14 which refers to Joshua son <strong>of</strong> Jozadak, the first high priest after the Exile, andZerubbabel as the ―sons <strong>of</strong> oil‖.The high priests were also referred to as ngyd ―ruler‖ (= ngyd mshych ―anointed ruler‖ in Daniel 9:25)in Jeremiah 20:1, Nehemiah 11:11 (―ruler <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong> God‖), 2 Chronicles 31:10, 13, and mostimportantly, Daniel 11:22 (―the ruler <strong>of</strong> the covenant‖) whose destruction at the hands <strong>of</strong> AntiochusEpiphanes related in that verse corresponds to the cutting <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> the ―anointed one‖ in 9:26 (comparealso 1 Enoch 90:8).The purpose and intent <strong>of</strong> ch. 9 rather comes into focus when it is understood that it is talking aboutthe same thing that the visions in ch. 8 and 10-11 are concerned with: the sanctity <strong>of</strong> the Temple in thepost-exilic period, climaxing in the defiling <strong>of</strong> the Temple under Antiochus Epiphanes (the ―littlehorn‖ from the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Greece in ch. 8).The question <strong>of</strong> ―how long‖ from ch. 8 receives a specific answer in the periodization scheme <strong>of</strong> ch. 9,and the question <strong>of</strong> ―why‖ the Temple remains in such a state so long after the return from Exile isalso answered by the angel.The scheme the author adopts is intelligible because it is interpretive <strong>of</strong> both Jeremiah and Leviticus(it uses Leviticus to interpret Jeremiah), such that the 70 years is expanded into a duration <strong>of</strong> 490years on account <strong>of</strong> the ―sevenfold‖ curse from Leviticus (the curse alluded to in Daniel 9:11).There is nothing about when a ―Messiah‖ is supposed to come in the prayer that Daniel gives; he isasking for the curses against Jerusalem and its Temple to come to an end. It is the same with ch. 8,which inquires on when the defiling <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary would come to an end so that it would bereconsecrated (v. 13-14), i.e. anointed by the high priest.The interpretation in the OP, which makes the seventy weeks climax with the destruction <strong>of</strong> Jerusalemby Titus (with the Temple never being rebuilt again), is wholly contrary to the thought in v. 24 whichstates that the period is one in which the holy city atones for its transgression, ending with it beingbrought into a state <strong>of</strong> everlasting righteousness.To lay this out in further detail, Daniel first was counting the years for the ―successive devastations <strong>of</strong>Jerusalem to come to an end‖ (v. 2), i.e. the 70 years <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah, and the prayer referred to theformer desolation <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem in v. 12, 16, 17, 18 and the destruction <strong>of</strong> the Temple in v. 17: ―Foryour own sake, Lord, let your face smile again on your desolate sanctuary‖.The problems faced by the author <strong>of</strong> Daniel were:(1) The fact that the glorious restoration <strong>of</strong> the Temple and Israel in Isaiah 60-62, Ezekiel 40-48,Zechariah 12-14, had not yet been realized in the Seleucid era but instead Judah remainedunder foreign oppression in a ―time <strong>of</strong> trouble‖, and(2) The fact that the Temple was defiled and devastated a second time by Antiochus Epiphanesand his mysarch (cf. Daniel 11:31).As 1 Maccabees described the events in part:―Antiochus turned about and advanced on Israel and Jerusalem inmassive strength. Insolently breaking into the sanctuary, heremoved the golden altar and the lampstand for the light with all itsfittings, together with the table for the loaves <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering ... the goldendecorations in front <strong>of</strong> the Temple, which he stripped <strong>of</strong> everything78

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by Leolaia... leaving the places a shambles...Two years later the king sent amysarch through the cities <strong>of</strong> Judah. He came to Jerusalem with animpressive force and addressing them with what appeared to bepeaceful words, he gained their confidence; then suddenly he fell onthe city dealing it a terrible blow, and destroying many <strong>of</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> Israel.He pillaged the city and set it on fire, tore down its houses andencircling wall, took the woman and children captive ... They shedinnocent blood all round the sanctuary and defiled the sanctuaryitself. The citizens <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem fled because <strong>of</strong> them, she became adwelling place <strong>of</strong> strangers ... her sanctuary became as deserted as awilderness‖ (1 Maccabees 1:20-24, 29-39).The answer to this unexpected turn <strong>of</strong> events was that the 70 years <strong>of</strong> the prophet Jeremiah were notyet completed, even hundreds <strong>of</strong> years later. In the vision, the angel Gabriel expands the original 70years into 490 years on the basis <strong>of</strong> the ―curse‖ mentioned in Daniel‘s prayer:―The whole <strong>of</strong> Israel flouted your Law and turned away, unwilling tolisten to your voice; and the curse and imprecation written in the Law<strong>of</strong> Moses, the servant <strong>of</strong> God, have come pouring down on us becausewe have sinned against him‖ (Daniel 9:11).The curse referred to here is the one in Leviticus:―If you have set yourselves against me and will not listen to me, I willheap these plagues on you in sevenfold punishment for your sins... Iwill set myself against you in fury and punish you sevenfold for yoursins... I will reduce your cities to ruin; I will lay your sanctuarieswaste, I will no longer breathe the fragrance that would appease me. Iwill make such a desolation <strong>of</strong> the land that your enemies who cometo live there will be appalled by it. And I will scatter you among thenations ... Then the land will observe its sabbaths indeed, lyingdesolate there, while you are in the land <strong>of</strong> your enemies ... But theymust atone for their sin, for they have spurned my customs andabhorred my laws‖ (Leviticus 26:21, 27-34, 43).The angel takes this warning literally and multiplies Jeremiah‘s 70 years by 7 (70 x 7 = 490 years),expanding the period <strong>of</strong> punishment for centuries longer during which the people are to ―finishtransgression, to bring sins to completion and to expiate iniquity,‖ just as Leviticus 26:43 states thatthe period <strong>of</strong> punishment is for the people to ―atone for their sin‖.Thus, even though Jerusalem may be rebuilt and the sanctuary anointed again by the ―anointed‖priests, the promised punishment <strong>of</strong> God ―laying your sanctuaries waste‖ would not be completeduntil the full ―seventy weeks‖ are over and the people‘s sins atoned. The interpretation <strong>of</strong> the seventyweeks in Daniel 9:25-27 thus culminates in the final restoration <strong>of</strong> the Temple, not its finaldestruction.The 70th week concerns the same defiling <strong>of</strong> the Temple related in ch. 8, the ―little horn‖ <strong>of</strong> thekingdom <strong>of</strong> Greece, i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes who caused sacrifice and oblation to cease and whoinstalled the abomination <strong>of</strong> desolation on the sanctuary:Then the prophet asks:―He grew great even up to the prince <strong>of</strong> the host, from whom theperpetual sacrifice was taken away and whose sanctuary place wascast down. A host was given over together with the perpetualsacrifice‖ (8:11-12).79

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by Leolaia―For how long is the vision <strong>of</strong> the perpetual sacrifice and the desolating transgression, and his givingover <strong>of</strong> sanctuary and host to be trampled?‖, and he is told that it would last a little more than threeyears ―until the sanctuary is reconsecrated‖ (8:13-14).This is parallel to 12:11 when the prophet is told that ―from the time when the perpetual <strong>of</strong>fering istaken away and the desolating abomination is set up is one thousand two hundred and ninety days‖,i.e. about 3 1/2 years.We have the same scheme in ch. 9. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the seven-year period, the high priest wouldbe cut <strong>of</strong>f (= Daniel 11:22) and then―the host <strong>of</strong> a ruler who is to come will destroy the city and thesanctuary‖and at the midpoint <strong>of</strong> the week―he will suppress sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering for half a week (i.e. 3 1/2years) and the desolating abomination will be in their place until thepredetermined destruction is poured out on the desolator‖ (9:26-27).This corresponds exactly to what is said in ch. 11 with respect to Antiochus‘ defiling <strong>of</strong> the Temple:―Forces <strong>of</strong> his will come and pr<strong>of</strong>ane the sanctuary citadel; they willabolish the perpetual sacrifice and install the desolating abominationthere‖ (11:31).All these parallels within Daniel show that the person who ends sacrifice and <strong>of</strong>fering is not amessianic savior (common to many Christian interpretations <strong>of</strong> the passage) but an evil antichrist-likeking, the ―little horn‖ <strong>of</strong> ch. 8 (a ruler from the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Greece).The installation <strong>of</strong> the desolating abomination is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:54:―On the fifteenth day <strong>of</strong> Chislev in the year on hundred and forty-five[i.e. December 8, 167 BC], the king erected the desolatingabomination above the altar; and altars were built in the surroundingtowns <strong>of</strong> Judah‖.This event is also described in 2 Maccabees 6:2 which states that Antiochus ―pr<strong>of</strong>aned the Temple inJerusalem by dedicating it to Olympian Zeus‖, and ―the altar <strong>of</strong> sacrifice was loaded with victimsproscribed by the laws as unclean‖ (v. 5).From this time forward:―The king sent instructions ... banning holocausts, sacrifices andlibations from the sanctuary, pr<strong>of</strong>aning sabbaths and feasts, defilingthe sanctuary and the sacred ministers‖ (1 Maccabees 1:44-46).Then, three years later and 3 1/2 years after the mysarch devastated the city and Temple, theMaccabeans rededicated the Temple and purified it (i.e. anointing it anew):―They had overthrown the abomination he had erected over thealtar in Jerusalem, and had encircled the sanctuary with high walls ...[Judas] selected priests who were blameless in observance <strong>of</strong> the lawto purify the sanctuary and remove the stones <strong>of</strong> the abominationto an unclean place. They discussed what should be done about thealtar <strong>of</strong> holocausts which had been pr<strong>of</strong>aned, and very properlydecided to pull it down that it might never become a reproach tothem, from its defilement by the pagans ... and built a new altar onthe lines <strong>of</strong> the old one. They restored the Holy Place and theinterior <strong>of</strong> the house, and purified the courts. They made newsacred vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar <strong>of</strong> incense, andthe table into the Temple. They burned incense on the altar and lit thelamps on the lampstand, and these shone inside the Temple. They set80

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by Leolaiaout the loaves on the table and hung the curtains and completed all thetasks they had undertaken. On the twenty-fifth <strong>of</strong> the ninth month,Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-eight [i.e. December 164BC], they rose at dawn and <strong>of</strong>fered a lawful sacrifice on the newaltar <strong>of</strong> holocausts which they had made‖ (1 Maccabees 4:42-53,6:7).Hence the festival <strong>of</strong> Dedication (= Hannukah) that Jesus observed in Jerusalem, as related in thegospel <strong>of</strong> John. This is the expected ―restoration <strong>of</strong> the rights <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary‖ mentioned in Daniel8:14 and the ―anointing <strong>of</strong> the Holy <strong>of</strong> Holies‖ mentioned in 9:24, which occurs at the completion <strong>of</strong>the ―seventy weeks‖. And indeed, this event occurred 7 years after 171 BC, the year when the lastlegitimate high priest Onias III was ―cut <strong>of</strong>f‖.The ―stop to sacrifice and oblation‖ mentioned in 9:27 is not for all time (as the messianic Christianinterpretation <strong>of</strong>ten construes it) but only for the ―half week‖ at the end <strong>of</strong> the seventy weeks. Thenthe restoration <strong>of</strong> the Temple prophesied by Jeremiah would be complete. This event was alsoregarded by Josephus as fulfillment <strong>of</strong> Daniel, as restoring the sacrifice that the ―little horn‖ hadabolished in ch. 8:―Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the plain <strong>of</strong> Susa, and heinforms us that God interpreted the appearance <strong>of</strong> this vision after thefollowing manner: He said that the ram signified the kingdom <strong>of</strong> theMedes and Persians, and the horns were those kings that were to reignin them ... that the he-goat signified that one should come and reignfrom the Greeks ... and that from among them there should arise acertain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, andshould take away our political government, and should spoil theTemple, and forbid the sacrifices to be <strong>of</strong>fered for three years. Andindeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these thingsunder Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel‘s vision‖(Josephus, Antiquities <strong>of</strong> the Jews 10.11.7).The concept <strong>of</strong> a sin-atoning Messiah is particularly alien to the context. The author makes directreference to the curse in the ―Law <strong>of</strong> Moses‖ (Daniel 9:11), and this curse states that ―they must atonefor their sin, for they have spurned my customs and abhorred my laws‖ (Leviticus 26:43). Not ―AMessiah must atone for their sin‖, but THEY must atone for their sin.Leviticus has no concept <strong>of</strong> a Messiah, just as Daniel has no concept <strong>of</strong> a sin-atoning Messiah. Inatoning for their sin, the Israelites were to ―confess their sins and the sins <strong>of</strong> their fathers, sins bywhich they betrayed me‖ (Leviticus 26:40), and this is exactly what Daniel does, making his―confession‖ while fasting dressed in sackcloth and ashes (Daniel 9:3-4).The seventy years were a time for repentance (just as the expanded ―seventy weeks‖ were a time for―putting an end to transgression and expiating crime‖, v. 24), and the prophet made his confessionbefore the literal 70 years were over. The atoning for Israel‘s sin is also mentioned in Isaiah 40:2, thatat the time Cyrus allows the exiles to return to Jerusalem, their ―time <strong>of</strong> service is ended, that their sinis atoned for, that they have received from the hand <strong>of</strong> Yahweh double punishment for all her crimes‖.The difference in Daniel is that the period for atoning for sin is expanded into seventy weeks <strong>of</strong> years(Daniel 9:24), postponing the completion <strong>of</strong> atonement for several hundred years. The people atonetheir sins, and God absolves their guilt along the same lines as Leviticus. 185185 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201747/3/Biblical-Prophecies-written-BEFORE-fulfillment81

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by LeolaiaThe NT does not relate any Danielic oracle to the earthly ―appearance‖ or death <strong>of</strong> Jesus (other thanapplying Daniel 7 to the future parousia <strong>of</strong> the heavenly Son <strong>of</strong> Man on the clouds <strong>of</strong> heaven); thepassages referring to the desolating abomination (Daniel 9:27, 11:31) are instead applied in thesynoptic gospels to the events surrounding AD 66-70 (cf. Matthew 24:15, Mark 9:14, Luke 21:20),i.e. the destruction <strong>of</strong> the Temple (cf. Luke 21:5-6).This draws on a first-century AD interpretation <strong>of</strong> the Seventy Weeks that has the 3½ years <strong>of</strong>persecution and war by the ―ruler who will come‖ correspond to the period <strong>of</strong> the Jewish revolt (66-70AD); rabbinical sources preserve this interpretation in part, which even jiggles post-exilic chronologyto make the 490 years end in AD 70 (see the Seder Olam Rabbah for a detailed explication).The biblical ratification <strong>of</strong> this stream <strong>of</strong> interpretation in the synoptic gospels is one major reasonwhy the ―Seventy Weeks‖ oracle is interpreted as pertaining to Titus and the destruction <strong>of</strong> theTemple in AD 70 (as in the OP), even though this is inconsistent with making the 69th week end withthe appearance or crucifixion <strong>of</strong> Jesus; one would have to detach the 70th week from the precedingchronographical scheme to skip over the many years in between the crucifixion <strong>of</strong> Jesus and AD 70.Then dispensationalist interpreters in the 19th century promoted the view that the 70th week isdetached still further and lies in the future (to be fulfilled when the Antichrist rules the earth). This <strong>of</strong>course is a conspicuous contrivance imposed on the oracle, as there is no indication whatsoever in thetext that a pause intervenes in between the 69th and 70th weeks (indeed it is a contiguous period in thesame way that the 70 years <strong>of</strong> Jeremiah is contiguous).Second, if there is any future figure that the ―Seventy Weeks‖ oracle was expected to prophesy, itwasn‘t the ―anointed‖ one at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 62-week block or at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> it; it wasrather the ―ruler who is to come‖ who would desolate the Temple with his forces (the Society fwiwclaims that the ―ruler who is to come‖ was General Titus).As Daniel 9:27 was <strong>of</strong>ten linked with Genesis 49:10 in early Jewish exegesis, this desolator <strong>of</strong> theTemple was also construed as a Gentile ―messiah‖. There is thus evidence that the Idumaean KingHerod was regarded by some as the ―ruler who is to come‖ (a view reproduced by Eusebius), whomthe Herodian party may have taken to be messianic (he ended the Hasmonean priesthood, he tookcontrol <strong>of</strong> the city and Judea, he tore down the Temple and built it again anew).Josephus, writing at a time when Daniel 9 was applied to the events <strong>of</strong> AD 66-70, proclaimedVespasian to be the messiah, pointing to the Jewish scriptures as prophesying that a Gentile wouldbecome world ruler on Jewish soil.James VanderKam has also written a very interesting article suggesting that in the gospel <strong>of</strong> John,Jesus himself was misunderstood by the Jews as being an Antiochus-like figure, akin to the ―rulerwho is to come‖. So in ch. 10, we have Jesus at the Portico <strong>of</strong> Solomon (the only portion <strong>of</strong> the FirstTemple to survive Nebuchadnezzar‘s destruction and the successive rebuildings) on Hannukah, on aday when the deeds <strong>of</strong> Antiochus IV Epiphanes are foremost in the minds <strong>of</strong> those gathered inJerusalem. And Jesus infuriates the Jews there who want to stone him for ―blasphemy because you, amere man, claim to be God‖ (John 10:33). This is directly reminiscent <strong>of</strong> how Antiochus Epiphanes(i.e. God Manifest) was described as blasphemously glorifying himself.―This horn had a mouth that spoke boastfully...He will speak againstthe Most High‖ (Daniel 7:20, 25).―It set itself up to be as great as the commander <strong>of</strong> the army <strong>of</strong>Yahweh ... he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince<strong>of</strong> princes‖ (8:11, 25).―He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will sayunheard-<strong>of</strong> things against the God <strong>of</strong> gods ... He will exalt himselfover them all‖ (11:36-37).82

Further Reading: More Subsequent Comments by LeolaiaWhen Antiochus recants <strong>of</strong> his deeds on his deathbed, he says:―It is right to submit to God; no mortal man should equal himself toGod‖ (2 Maccabees 10:12)Compare the similar account <strong>of</strong> Jews wanting to stone Jesus for ―making himself equal to God‖ inJohn 5:18).Another Antiochus-like misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> Jesus‘ words can be found in John 2, when Jesusattempts a cleansing <strong>of</strong> the Temple, and he declares ―destroy this sanctuary and in three days I willraise it‖ (v. 19). The author portrays the Jews as misunderstanding Jesus‘ words, thinking he wastalking about destroying the Temple.This is similar to hearsay attributed to Jesus in Matthew 26:61:―He said, ‗I have the power to destroy the Temple <strong>of</strong> God and raise itup in three days‘ ‖.So it is possible that the charges against Jesus as being a blasphemer and as one who would destroythe Temple are colored by the Danielic conception <strong>of</strong> Antiochus Epiphanes as the ―ruler who is tocome‖. 186186http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201747/3/Biblical-Prophecies-written-BEFOREfulfillment83