Misplaced Pages

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:37, 5 May 2021 editOAbot (talk | contribs)Bots439,234 editsm Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot.← Previous edit Revision as of 06:36, 5 December 2024 edit undoAchar Sva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,813 edits Composition and structure: shortenNext edit →
(114 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|In the Bible, a prophecy given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel}} {{Short description|Narrative in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel}}
{{Daniel chapters}} {{Daniel chapters}}
The '''Prophecy of Seventy Weeks''' is the narrative in chapter 9 of the ] which tells how ] prays to God to act on behalf of his people and city (i.e., ] and ]), and in response is given a detailed but cryptic supposed ] of "seventy weeks" by the angel ]. The '''Prophecy of Seventy Weeks''' (chapter 9 of the ]) tells how ] prays to God to act on behalf of his people and city (] and ]), and receives a detailed but cryptic ] of "seventy weeks" by the angel ]. The prophecy has been the subject of "intense exegetical activity" since the ].{{sfn|Segal|2011|loc=p. 293 n. 31}} ] referred to the history of this prophecy's interpretation as the "dismal swamp" of critical ].{{sfn|Athas|2009|p=2}}

The prophecy has proven difficult for readers,{{sfn|Tanner|2009a|p=181}} despite having been the subject of "intense exegetical activity" since the ].{{sfn|Segal|2011|loc=p. 293 n. 31}} ] referred to the history of this prophecy's interpretation as the "dismal swamp" of critical ].{{sfn|Athas|2009|p=2}}


== Summary == == Summary ==


Daniel reads in the "books" that the desolation of Jerusalem must last for seventy years according to the prophetic words of ] (verse 2), and prays for God to act on behalf of his people and city (verses 3–19). The angel Gabriel appears and tells Daniel that he has come to give wisdom and understanding, for at the beginning of Daniel's prayer a "word" went out and Gabriel has come to declare this ] (verses 20–23): In the ], ] reads in the "books" that the desolation of Jerusalem must last for seventy years according to the prophetic words of ] (verse 2), and prays for God to act on behalf of his people and city (verses 3–19). The angel Gabriel appears and tells Daniel that he has come to give wisdom and understanding, for at the beginning of Daniel's prayer a "word" went out and Gabriel has come to declare this ] (verses 20–23):


{{quote|{{sup|24}}Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. {{quote|{{sup|24}}Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Line 13: Line 11:


{{sup|26}}After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. {{sup|26}}After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
{{sup|27}}He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.|{{bibleref2|Daniel|9:24–27 (NRSV)|NRSV}}}} {{sup|27}}He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.|Daniel 9:24–27, ]<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|9:24–27|NRSV}}</ref>}}


== Composition and structure == == Composition and structure ==
] by Cyrus Emanuel Eugenicus.]] ] by Cyrus Emanuel Eugenicus]]


=== Chapter outline === === Chapter outline ===


The consensus among critical scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the ] originated as a collection of ] among the ] in the ]/], to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under ] in 167–163 BCE.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=35–37, 60–61}} The authors of the tales apparently took the name Daniel from a legendary hero mentioned in the ], and the author of the visions in turn adopted him from the tales.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=1}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=220}} The point of departure is Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy as opposed to a visionary episode, but more than half the chapter is devoted to a rather lengthy prayer.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} The consensus among scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the ] originated as a collection of ] among the ] in the ]/], to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under ] in 167–163 BCE.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=35–37, 60–61}} The authors of the tales apparently took the name Daniel from a legendary hero mentioned in the ], and the author of the visions in turn adopted him from the tales.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=1}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=220}} The point of departure is Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy as opposed to a visionary episode, but more than half the chapter is devoted to a rather lengthy prayer.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}}
{{ordered list|type=upper-roman {{ordered list|type=upper-roman
| Verses 1–2. Introduction, indicating the date and occasion (the reading of Jeremiah's prophecy). | Verses 1–2. Introduction, indicating the date and occasion (the reading of Jeremiah's prophecy).
| Verses 3–19. Daniel's prayer: | Verses 3–19. Daniel's prayer:
{{ordered list|type=upper-latin {{ordered list|type=upper-latin
| An introductory statement in verses 3-4a describes how Daniel set himself to pray. | An introductory statement in verses 3–4a describes how Daniel set himself to pray.
| The prayer: | The prayer:
{{ordered list|type=decimal {{ordered list|type=decimal
| Invocation (verse 4b). | Invocation (verse 4b).
| Confession of sin (verses 5-11a). | Confession of sin (verses 5–11a).
| Acknowledgement of divine punishment (verses 11b-14), marked by the passive verb in verse 11b and the switch to God as subject in verse 12. | Acknowledgement of divine punishment (verses 11b–14), marked by the passive verb in verse 11b and the switch to God as subject in verse 12.
| Prayer for mercy (verses 15–19). | Prayer for mercy (verses 15–19).
}} }}
Line 36: Line 34:
| Verses 20–27. The revelation: | Verses 20–27. The revelation:
{{ordered list|type=upper-latin {{ordered list|type=upper-latin
| An introductory statement (verses 20-21a), giving the circumstances in which the revelation occurred. | An introductory statement (verses 20–21a), giving the circumstances in which the revelation occurred.
| The epiphany of the angel (verse 21b). | The epiphany of the angel (verse 21b).
| The angelic discourse (verses 22–27), consisting of: | The angelic discourse (verses 22–27), consisting of:
Line 48: Line 46:
=== Daniel's prayer === === Daniel's prayer ===


Modern critical scholars have sometimes argued that Daniel's prayer in verses 3–19 is secondary to chapter 9,{{sfn|Gall|1895|pp=123–26}}{{sfn|Hartman|Di Lella|1978|pp=245–46}} as it contrasts sharply with the difficult Hebrew that is characteristic of Daniel.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} Still, it might be that the author(s) of the chapter incorporated (or adapted) a traditional prayer in the course of composition, in which case the prayer would not be a later addition.{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=362}} Proponents of the view that the prayer is secondary argue that the context requires a prayer of illumination and not a communal confession of sin, and the beginning and end of the prayer are marked by duplications in verses 3-4a and verses 20-21a that are most plausibly interpreted as redactional seams.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} However, these considerations have not proved decisive,{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=237}} and arguments in favor of the prayer's authenticity have also been advanced.{{sfn|Jones|1968}} In particular, the concluding passage in verses 20–27 contains several allusions to the language in the prayer, suggesting that it was included purposefully by the author(s) of the chapter, even if it was not originally composed by them.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=348}} Modern critical scholars have sometimes argued that Daniel's prayer in verses 3–19 is secondary to chapter 9,{{sfn|Gall|1895|pp=123–26}}{{sfn|Hartman|Di Lella|1978|pp=245–46}} as it contrasts sharply with the difficult Hebrew that is characteristic of Daniel.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} Still, it might be that the author(s) of the chapter incorporated (or adapted) a traditional prayer in the course of composition, in which case the prayer would not be a later addition.{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=362}} Proponents of the view that the prayer is secondary argue that the context requires a prayer of illumination and not a communal confession of sin, and the beginning and end of the prayer are marked by duplications in verses 3–4a and verses 20–21a that are most plausibly interpreted as redactional seams.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} However, these considerations have not proved decisive,{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=237}} and arguments in favor of the prayer's authenticity have also been advanced.{{sfn|Jones|1968}} In particular, the concluding passage in verses 20–27 contains several allusions to the language in the prayer, suggesting that it was included purposefully by the author(s) of the chapter, even if it was not originally composed by them.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=348}}


=== Gabriel's revelation === === Gabriel's revelation ===
Line 69: Line 67:
| {{in5|25}}F{{in5}}To anoint the Holy One of holy ones. | {{in5|25}}F{{in5}}To anoint the Holy One of holy ones.
|- |-
| {{in5|25}}F'{{in5}}You will discern wisdom from the departure of a word to return and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one is ruler. | {{in5|25}}F′{{in5}}You will discern wisdom from the departure of a word to return and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one is ruler.
|- |-
| {{in5|20}}E'{{in5}}You will return for seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and by the distress of the times it will be rebuilt, square and moat. | {{in5|20}}E′{{in5}}You will return for seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and by the distress of the times it will be rebuilt, square and moat.
|- |-
| {{in5|15}}D'{{in5}}After the sixty-two weeks he will cut off an anointed one, and the coming ruler will not have the people. | {{in5|15}}D′{{in5}}After the sixty-two weeks he will cut off an anointed one, and the coming ruler will not have the people.
|- |-
| {{in5|10}}C'{{in5}}He will destroy the holy city and its end will be by a flood, and by the end of the determined warfare there will be desolations. | {{in5|10}}C′{{in5}}He will destroy the holy city and its end will be by a flood, and by the end of the determined warfare there will be desolations.
|- |-
| {{in5|5}}B'{{in5}}He will take away the sacrificial offering in the other week, and confirm a covenant for many in the middle of the week. | {{in5|5}}B′{{in5}}He will take away the sacrificial offering in the other week, and confirm a covenant for many in the middle of the week.
|- |-
| A'{{in5}}On your base will be eighty abominations, and you will pour out for desolation until a complete destruction is determined. | A′{{in5}}On your base will be eighty abominations, and you will pour out for desolation until a complete destruction is determined.
|} |}


== Genre and themes == == Genre and themes ==


The seventy weeks prophecy is an ] in periodized form whose '']'' is the ] in the second century BCE, with content analogous to the ] ''Apocalypse of Weeks'' as well as the ''Animal Apocalypse''.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} In this way, the prophecy puts the Antiochene crisis in perspective by locating it within an overview of history;{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}} the specificity of the prediction is significant for the psychological effect of the revelation, which has long been recognized as a distinctive characteristic of Daniel's prophecies (cf. ''Ant.'' 10.11.7 §&nbsp;267).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|loc=p. 98 n. 15}} The prophecy is also an instance of ], as it belongs to the genre of revelatory literature in which a revelation is mediated to a human recipient in Daniel by an otherworldly being in the angel Gabriel that envisages ] salvation.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=54–55}} Within the macro-genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, the prophecy further belongs to the subgenre known as the "historical apocalypse," which is characterized by the use of ''ex eventu'' prophecy and the presence of an interpreting angel.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=54–55}} The seventy weeks prophecy is an ] in periodized form whose '']'' is the ] in the second century BCE, with content analogous to the ] ''Apocalypse of Weeks'' as well as the ''Animal Apocalypse''.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} In this way, the prophecy puts the Antiochene crisis in perspective by locating it within an overview of history;{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}} the specificity of the prediction is significant for the psychological effect of the revelation, which has long been recognized as a distinctive characteristic of Daniel's prophecies (cf. ''Ant.'' 10.11.7 §&nbsp;267).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|loc=p. 98 n. 15}} The prophecy is also an instance of ], as it belongs to the genre of revelatory literature in which a revelation is mediated to a human recipient in Daniel by an otherworldly being in the angel Gabriel that envisages ] salvation.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=54–55}} Within the macro-genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, the prophecy further belongs to the subgenre known as the "historical apocalypse," which is characterized by the use of ''ex eventu'' prophecy and the presence of an interpreting angel.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=54–55}}


The lengthy prayer in verses 3–19 is strongly ] in its theology—Daniel's people are punished for their own sin and appeal to God for mercy.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} However, such theological overtones conflict with other aspects of the Book of Daniel, in which the primary sin is that of a gentile king and the course of history is arranged in advance.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} Consequently, scholars have variously argued that the angel ignores Daniel's prayer and that the author(s) is making the point that "the calamity is decreed and will end at the appointed time, quite apart from prayers,"{{sfn|Jones|1968|p=493}} and/or that the prayer is not intended to influence God but is "an act of piety in itself."{{sfn|Towner|1971|p=213}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=359–60}} As Collins observes, "he deliverance promised by the angel is in no sense a response to Daniel's prayer" since "he word goes forth at the beginning of Daniel's supplication."{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}} In any case, the relationship between Daniel's prayer and the context in which it is placed, is a central issue in the contemporary scholarly interpretation of chapter 9.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} The lengthy prayer in verses 3–19 is strongly ] in its theology—Daniel's people are punished for their own sin and appeal to God for mercy.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} However, such theological overtones conflict with other aspects of the Book of Daniel, in which the primary sin is that of a gentile king and the course of history is arranged in advance.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}} Consequently, scholars have variously argued that the angel ignores Daniel's prayer and that the author(s) is making the point that "the calamity is decreed and will end at the appointed time, quite apart from prayers,"{{sfn|Jones|1968|p=493}} and/or that the prayer is not intended to influence God but is "an act of piety in itself."{{sfn|Towner|1971|p=213}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=359–60}} As Collins observes, "he deliverance promised by the angel is in no sense a response to Daniel's prayer" since "he word goes forth at the beginning of Daniel's supplication."{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=360}} In any case, the relationship between Daniel's prayer and the context in which it is placed, is a central issue in the contemporary scholarly interpretation of chapter 9.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}}


== Historical-critical analysis == == Historical-critical analysis ==
], "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem", c. 1630.]] ], "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem", {{c.|1630}}.]]

=== Historical background === === Historical background ===


] defeated the last vestiges of Assyria at ] under ], who was unsuccessfully assisted by ] of Egypt. It was this event that ] lost his life. ] replaced him, but Necho replaced him with ] and exacted three years of servitude and tribute. Four years later Necho returned and lost again at the ] in 605 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar II finally established the ] as the dominant regional power, with significant consequences for the southern ]. Following a revolt in 597 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar deposed Judah's king ], installed ] for three months, but his rebelliousness brought Nebuchadnezzar back. Jehoiachin surrendered and this saw the first round-up of captives including Daniel, ], ], and ]
] defeated Egypt at the ] in 605 BCE and established ] as the dominant regional power, with significant consequences for the southern ]. Following a revolt in 597 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar removed Judah's king, ]; and after a second revolt in 586 BCE, he destroyed the city of Jerusalem along with the ], carrying away much of the population to Babylon.{{sfn|Levine|2010|p=173}} Accordingly, the subsequent period from 586 BCE to 538 BCE is known as the ],{{sfn|Levine|2010|p=36}} which came to an end when Babylon was conquered by the Persian king ], who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Judah via his famous ]. The Persian period, in turn, came to an end in the first half of the fourth century BCE following the arrival of ], whose vast kingdom was divided upon his death among the ]. The series of conflicts that ensued following Alexander's death in the ] that erupted among the Diadochi mark the beginning of the Hellenistic period in 323/2 BCE. Two of the rival kingdoms produced out of this conflict—the ] in Egypt and the ] in Syria—fought for control of Palestine during the Hellenistic period.{{sfn|Levine|2010|pp=25–26}}
: ]
12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.
13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said.
14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.
15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar finally installed ] who lasted 11 years. After a second revolt in 586 BCE, ] destroyed the city of Jerusalem along with the ], carrying away much of the population to Babylon.{{sfn|Levine|2010|p=173}} Accordingly, the subsequent period from 586 BCE to 538 BCE is known as the ],{{sfn|Levine|2010|p=36}} which came to an end when Babylon was conquered by the Persian king ], who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Judah via his famous ]. The Persian period, in turn, came to an end in the first half of the fourth century BCE following the arrival of ], whose vast kingdom was divided upon his death among the ]. The series of conflicts that ensued following Alexander's death in the ] that erupted among the Diadochi mark the beginning of the Hellenistic period in 323/2 BCE. Two of the rival kingdoms produced out of this conflict—the ] in Egypt and the ] in Syria—fought for control of Palestine during the Hellenistic period.{{sfn|Levine|2010|pp=25–26}}


At the start of the second century BCE, the Seleucids had the upper hand in their struggle with the Ptolemaic kingdom for regional dominance, but the earlier conflicts had left them nearly bankrupt. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to recoup some of his kingdom's fortunes by selling the post of Jewish high priest to the highest bidder, and in 171/0 BCE the existing high priest (i.e. ]) was deposed and murdered. Palestine was subsequently divided between those who favored the Hellenistic culture of the Seleucids and those who remained loyal to the older Jewish traditions; however, for reasons that are still not understood, Antiochus IV banned key aspects of traditional Jewish religion in 168/7 BCE—including the twice-daily continual offering (cf. {{bibleverse|Daniel|8:13|KJV}}; {{bibleverse-nb|Daniel|11:31|KJV}}; {{bibleverse-nb|Daniel|12:11|KJV}}).{{sfn|Lust|2002|pp=672–73}} At the start of the second century BCE, the Seleucids had the upper hand in their struggle with the Ptolemaic kingdom for regional dominance, but the earlier conflicts had left them nearly bankrupt. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to recoup some of his kingdom's fortunes by selling the post of Jewish high priest to the highest bidder, and in 171/0 BCE the existing high priest (i.e. ]) was deposed and murdered. Palestine was subsequently divided between those who favored the Hellenistic culture of the Seleucids and those who remained loyal to the older Jewish traditions; however, for reasons that are still not understood, Antiochus IV banned key aspects of traditional Jewish religion in 168/7 BCE—including the twice-daily continual offering (cf. Daniel 8:13;<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|8:13}}</ref> 11:31;<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|11:31}}</ref> 12:11).<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|12:11}}</ref>{{sfn|Lust|2002|pp=672–73}}


=== Context within chapter 9 === === Context within chapter 9 ===
The seventy weeks prophecy is internally dated to "the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede" (Daniel 9:1),<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|9:1|NRSV}}</ref> later referred to in the Book of Daniel as "]" (e.g. Daniel 11:1);<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|11:1|NRSV}}</ref> however, no such ruler is known to history and the widespread consensus among critical scholars is that he is a ].{{sfn|Rowley|1935|pp=12–66}} Nevertheless, within the biblical account, the first year of Darius the Mede corresponds to the first year after the Babylonian kingdom is overthrown, i.e., 538 BCE.{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=289}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=97}}


Chapter 9 can be distinguished from the other "visionary" chapters of the Book of Daniel by the fact that the point of departure for this chapter is another biblical text in Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and not a visionary episode.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} The longstanding consensus among critical scholars has been that verses 24–27 is a paradigmatic example of inner-biblical interpretation, in which the latter text reinterprets Jeremiah's seventy years of exile as seventy weeks of years.{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=283}} On this view, Jeremiah's prophecy that after seventy years God would punish the Babylonian kingdom (cf. ]) and once again pay special attention to his people in responding to their prayers and restoring them to the land (cf. ]–14) could not have been fulfilled by the disappointment that accompanied the return to the land in the Persian period, hence the necessity to extend the expiration date of the prophecy to the second century BCE.{{sfn|Grabbe|1987|pp=67–72}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=283}} Just as various elements of Daniel's visionary episodes are interpreted for him in chapters 7–8, so also Jeremiah's prophecy is interpreted for him in a manner similar to the {{transliteration|hbo|]}} exegesis evidenced at ] in chapter 9.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=284}} However, this consensus has recently been challenged on the grounds that Daniel prays to God following the defeat of the Babylonian kingdom precisely because Jeremiah's seventy years of exile have been completed and God promised through the prophet that he would respond to such prayers at this time,{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=97}} in which case the seventy weeks prophecy is not a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy but a separate prophecy altogether.{{sfn|Bergsma|2006|pp=212–25}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|pp=288–92, 302}} These considerations have been further refined along redactional lines to suggest that the latter holds relative to an earlier "pre-canonical" stage in the text, but that the seventy weeks prophecy is, in fact, a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy relative to the final form of the text.{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=97–107}}
The seventy weeks prophecy is internally dated to "the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede" (verse 1), elsewhere referred to within the Book of Daniel as "]" (e.g. {{bibleverse|Daniel|11:1|KJV}}); however, no such ruler is known to history independently of the Book of Daniel and the widespread consensus among critical scholars is that he is a literary fiction.{{sfn|Rowley|1935|pp=12–66}} Nevertheless, within the fictionalized biblical account, the first year of Darius the Mede corresponds to the first year after the Babylonian kingdom is overthrown, i.e., 538 BCE.{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=289}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=97}}

Chapter 9 can be distinguished from the other "visionary" chapters of the Book of Daniel by the fact that the point of departure for this chapter is another biblical text in Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and not a visionary episode.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=347}} The longstanding consensus among critical scholars has been that verses 24–27 is a paradigmatic example of inner-biblical interpretation, in which the latter text reinterprets Jeremiah's seventy years of exile as seventy weeks of years.{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=283}} On this view, Jeremiah's prophecy that after seventy years God would punish the Babylonian kingdom (cf. ]) and once again pay special attention to his people in responding to their prayers and restoring them to the land (cf. ]-14) could not have been fulfilled by the disappointment that accompanied the return to the land in the Persian period, hence the necessity to extend the expiration date of the prophecy to the second century BCE.{{sfn|Grabbe|1987|pp=67–72}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=283}} And just as various elements of Daniel's visionary episodes are interpreted for him in chapters 7–8, so also Jeremiah's prophecy is interpreted for him in a manner similar to the '']'' exegesis evidenced at ] in chapter 9.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=359}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=284}} However, this consensus has recently been challenged on the grounds that Daniel prays to God following the defeat of the Babylonian kingdom precisely because Jeremiah's seventy years of exile have been completed and God promised through the prophet that he would respond to such prayers at this time,{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=97}} in which case the seventy weeks prophecy is not a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy but a separate prophecy altogether.{{sfn|Bergsma|2006|pp=212–25}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|pp=288–92, 302}} And these considerations have been further refined along redactional lines to suggest that the latter holds relative to an earlier "pre-canonical" stage in the text, but that the seventy weeks prophecy is, in fact, a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy relative to the final form of the text.{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=97–107}}


=== The seventy weeks prophecy === === The seventy weeks prophecy ===
] on an ]. The inscription ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ reads, "Of Antiochus, God Manifest, Bearer of Victory."]] ] on an ]. The inscription {{langx|grc|ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ|Antiochou Theou Epiphanou Nikēphorou|label=none}} means, "Of Antiochus, God Manifest, Bearer of Victory."]]


The seventy "weeks" of years are divided into three groups: a seven-week period spanning forty-nine years, a sixty-two-week period spanning 434 years, and a final period of one week spanning seven years.{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=391}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=293}} The first seven weeks begin with the departure of a "word" to rebuild Jerusalem and ends with the arrival of an "anointed prince" (verse 25a); this "word" has generally been taken to refer to Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and dated to the fourth year of ] (or the first year of ]) in 605/4 BCE,{{sfn|Koch|1980|p=150}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=354}} but Collins objects that "he word to rebuild Jerusalem could scarcely have gone forth before it was destroyed," and prefers the "word" that Gabriel came to give Daniel in verse 23;{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=354–55}} other candidates include the edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BCE,{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=317}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=100–101}} the decree of ] in 458/7 BCE,{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=100–101}} and the warrant given to ] in 445/4 BCE.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=260}}{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}} Candidates for the "prince" in verse 25a include Cyrus (cf. ]),{{sfn|Delcor|1971|p=144}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}} ],{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=355}}{{sfn|Nel|2013|p=4}} ],{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}}{{sfn|Nel|2013|p=4}} ],{{sfn|Athas|2009|p=16}} Ezra,{{sfn|Ulrich|2014|p=1071}} Nehemiah,{{sfn|Segal|2011|pp=297–302}} the angelic "prince" ] (cf. {{bibleverse|Daniel|10:21|KJV}}b),{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=102}} and even the collective people of God in the Second Temple period.{{sfn|Meadowcroft|2001|pp=440–49}} The seventy "weeks" of years are divided into three groups: a seven-week period spanning 49 years, a 62-week period spanning 434 years, and a final period of one week spanning seven years.{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=391}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=293}} The first seven weeks begin with the departure of a "word" to rebuild Jerusalem and ends with the arrival of an "anointed prince" (verse 25a); this "word" has generally been taken to refer to Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and dated to the fourth year of ] (or the first year of ]) in 605/4 BCE,{{sfn|Koch|1980|p=150}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=354}} but Collins objects that "he word to rebuild Jerusalem could scarcely have gone forth before it was destroyed," and prefers the "word" that Gabriel came to give Daniel in verse 23;{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=354–55}} other candidates include the edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BCE,{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=317}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=100–101}} the decree of ] in 458/7 BCE,{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=100–101}} and the warrant given to ] in 445/4 BCE.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=260}}{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}} Candidates for the "prince" in verse 25a include Cyrus (cf. ]),{{sfn|Delcor|1971|p=144}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}}{{sfn|Saadia|1981|pp=174–175}} ],{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=355}}{{sfn|Nel|2013|p=4}}{{sfn|Saadia|1981|pp=174–175}} ],{{sfn|Redditt|2000|p=238}}{{sfn|Nel|2013|p=4}} ],{{sfn|Athas|2009|p=16}} Ezra,{{sfn|Ulrich|2014|p=1071}} Nehemiah,{{sfn|Segal|2011|pp=297–302}} the angelic "prince" ] (cf. Daniel 10:21b),<ref>{{bibleverse|Daniel|10:21}}</ref>{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=102}} and even the collective people of God in the Second Temple period.{{sfn|Meadowcroft|2001|pp=440–49}}


In the subsequent period of sixty-two weeks the city is rebuilt (verse 25b) and an "anointed one shall be cut off" (verse 26a); this "anointed one" is generally considered to refer to the High Priest ],{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=355}}{{sfn|Redditt|2000|pp=238–39}} whose murder outside Jerusalem in 171/0 BCE is recorded in 2 Maccabees 4:23–28.{{sfn|Athas|2009|pp=9–12}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}} Most critical scholars see another reference to Onias III's murder in Daniel 11:22,{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=382}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} though ] and the infant son of ] have also been suggested.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=299}} On the other hand, this raises the question of how 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of years (or 483 years) could have elapsed between the departure of the "word" in verse 25a, which cannot be earlier than 605/4 BCE, and the murder of Onias III in 171/170 BCE. Hence, some critical scholars follow Montgomery in thinking that there has been "a chronological miscalculation on part of the writer"{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=393}} who has made "wrong-headed arithmetical calculations,"{{sfn|Porteous|1965|p=134}} although others follow ]'s explanation that the seventy weeks are not literal chronology but the more inexact science of "chronography";{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|pp=257–58}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=298}} Collins opts for a middle-ground position in saying that "the figure should be considered a round number rather than a miscalculation."{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=356}} Others who see the calculations as being at least approximately correct if the initial seven-week period of forty-nine years can overlap with the sixty-two-week period of 434 years, with the latter period spanning the time between Jeremiah's prophecy in 605/4 BCE and Onias III's murder in 171/0 BCE.{{sfn|Athas|2009|pp=16–17}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}} In the subsequent period of 62 weeks, or what are actually 434 years, the city is rebuilt and settled (verse 25b),{{sfn|Saadia|1981|p=176}} at the end of which time an "anointed one shall be cut off" (verse 26a); this "anointed one" is generally considered to refer to the High Priest ],{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=355}}{{sfn|Redditt|2000|pp=238–39}} whose murder outside Jerusalem in 171/0 BCE is recorded in 2 Maccabees 4:23–28.{{sfn|Athas|2009|pp=9–12}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}} Most critical scholars see another reference to Onias III's murder in Daniel 11:22,{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=382}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} though ] and the infant son of ] have also been suggested.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=299}} On the other hand, this raises the question of how 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of years (or 483 years) could have elapsed between the departure of the "word" in verse 25a, which cannot be earlier than 605/4 BCE, and the murder of Onias III in 171/170 BCE. Hence, some critical scholars follow Montgomery in thinking that there has been "a chronological miscalculation on part of the writer"{{sfn|Montgomery|1927|p=393}} who has made "wrong-headed arithmetical calculations,"{{sfn|Porteous|1965|p=134}} although others follow ]'s explanation that the 70 weeks are not literal chronology but the more inexact science of "chronography";{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|pp=257–58}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|p=298}} Collins opts for a middle-ground position in saying that "the figure should be considered a round number rather than a miscalculation."{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=356}} Others who see the calculations as being at least approximately correct if the initial seven-week period of 49 years can overlap with the 62-week period of 434 years, with the latter period spanning the time between Jeremiah's prophecy in 605/4 BCE and Onias III's murder in 171/0 BCE.{{sfn|Athas|2009|pp=16–17}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=106}} ] thinks that the "anointed one shall be cut off" refers to a time of trouble immediately following the 434 years, where the "anointed ones" (plural), meaning, many of the anointed priests of ], as well the descendants of ], will be cut off.{{sfn|Saadia|1981|pp=176–177}} Saadia goes on to explain such linguistic usage in the Hebrew language, where a word is written singularly, but is actually meant to be understood in the plural context. The Hebrew word for "cut off" is {{lang|he|כרת}}, which has also the connotation of "]," either by dying before one's time, or by not being able to bring forth offspring into the world.


The "prince who is to come" in verse 26b is typically seen by critical scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV,{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} though ] and ] have also been suggested.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=262}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} Hence, the "troops of the prince" are thought to be either the Seleucid troops that settled in Jerusalem (cf. Dan 11:31; 1 Macc 1:29–40) or the Jewish ]s.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} The reference to "troops" that will "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in verse 26b is somewhat problematic since neither Jerusalem nor the temple were actually destroyed,{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=328}} though the city was arguably rendered desolate and the temple defiled (cf. 1 Macc 1:46; 2 Macc 6:2),{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=328}} and Daniel's language of destruction "seems excessive".{{sfn|Towner|1984|p=143}} The "prince who is to come" in verse 26b is typically seen by critical scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV,{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} though ] and ] have also been suggested.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=262}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} Hence, the "troops of the prince" are thought to be either the Seleucid troops that settled in Jerusalem (cf. Daniel 11:31; 1 Maccabees 1:29–40) or the Jewish ]s.{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Seow|2003|p=150}} The reference to "troops" that will "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in verse 26b is somewhat problematic since neither Jerusalem nor the temple were actually destroyed,{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=328}} though the city was arguably rendered desolate and the temple defiled (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:46; 2 Maccabees 6:2),{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=328}} and Daniel's language of destruction "seems excessive".{{sfn|Towner|1984|p=143}}


Saadia, who takes a different approach, explains the "prince ({{transliteration|hbo|nagīd}}) who is to come" as being ], who came against the city at the conclusion of the 490 year period, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Imperial Roman army.{{sfn|Saadia|1981|p=178}}
The "covenant" in verse 27a most likely refers to the covenant between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus IV reported in 1 Maccabees 1:11,{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=262}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=106–107}} with the ban on regular worship for a period that lasted approximately three and a half years alluded to in the subsequent clause (cf. Dan 7:25; 8:14; 12:11).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Lust|2002|p=683}} The "]" in verse 27b (cf. 1 Macc 1:54) is usually seen as a reference to either the pagan sacrifices that replaced the twice-daily Jewish offering,(cf. Dan 11:31; 12:11; 2 Macc 6:5),{{sfn|Lust|2002|pp=682–87}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=107}} or the pagan altar on which such offerings were made.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=263}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=358}}

The "covenant" in verse 27a most likely refers to the covenant between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus IV reported in 1 Maccabees 1:11,{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=262}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=106–107}} with the ban on regular worship for a period that lasted approximately three and a half years alluded to in the subsequent clause (cf. Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:11).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}{{sfn|Lust|2002|p=683}} According to Saadia, the words: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (vs 27a), refers to that time shortly before the actual destruction of the Temple, a time which spanned seven years ("one week"), when God had extended to the people a chance to preserve their Temple, their laws and their polity, by acquiescing to Roman demands and leaving off their internecine strife. During this time of growing animosity against Rome, the Roman army sought to appease the Jewish nation and not to suffer their Temple to be destroyed. However, three and a half years before the Temple's demise, the Romans, through trickery and spitefulness, caused the cessation of their daily whole burnt-offerings, which culminated in the destruction of the Holy House three and a half years later.{{sfn|Saadia|1981|pp=178–179}}

The "]" in verse 27b (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54) is usually seen as a reference to either the pagan sacrifices that replaced the twice-daily Jewish offering, (cf. Daniel 11:31; 12:11; 2 Maccabees 6:5),{{sfn|Lust|2002|pp=682–87}}{{sfn|Waters|2016|p=107}} or the pagan altar on which such offerings were made.{{sfn|Goldingay|1989|p=263}}{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=358}} Saadia wrote that this refers to a graven image that was erected in the Holy Place, where the Temple formerly stood.{{sfn|Saadia|1981|p=179}}


== Christological readings == == Christological readings ==


]'s 17th-century ''Baptism of Christ'' is a typical depiction with the sky opening and the Holy Spirit descending as a dove.{{sfn|Ross|1996|p=30}}]] ]'s 17th-century ''Baptism of Christ'' is a typical depiction with the sky opening and the Holy Spirit descending as a dove.{{sfn|Ross|1996|p=30}}]]


] of ].]] ] of ].]]


There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9 as a ] prophecy fulfilled in ].{{sfn|Tanner|2009a|pp=200}} The various ] readings that have been proposed share a number of features in common: Either the "anointed prince" in verse 25a or the "anointed one" in verse 26a (or both) are understood to be references to Christ, who is also sometimes thought to be the "most holy" that is anointed in verse 24 (so the ] and the ]).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=354}}{{sfn|Tanner|2009a|p=198}} Some of the early church fathers also saw another reference to Christ in the "prince who is to come" (verse 26b), but this figure is more often identified with either the ] or one of the Roman officials that oversaw the ] in 70 CE (e.g. ] or ]).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}} There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9 as a ] prophecy fulfilled in ].{{sfn|Tanner|2009a|pp=200}} The various ] readings that have been proposed share a number of features in common: either the "anointed prince" in verse 25a or the "anointed one" in verse 26a (or both) are understood to be references to Christ, who is also sometimes thought to be the "most holy" that is anointed in verse 24 (so the ] and the ]).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=354}}{{sfn|Tanner|2009a|p=198}} Some of the early church fathers also saw another reference to Christ in the "prince who is to come" (verse 26b), but this figure is more often identified with either the ] or one of the Roman officials that oversaw the ] in 70 CE (e.g. ] or ]).{{sfn|Collins|1993|p=357}}


The seven and sixty-two-week "weeks" are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (the ''terminus a quo'') and terminating with the ].{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|pp=2–3}}{{sfn|Shea|1991|pp=136–37}}{{sfn|Payne|1978|p=101}} The reference to an anointed one being "cut off" in verse 26a is identified with the ] and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the seventieth week,{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|pp=2–3}} which is also when Jeremiah's new "covenant" is "confirmed" (verse 27a) and ] for "iniquity" (verse 24) is made. The "abomination that desolates" is typically read in the context of the ] references made to this expression in the ] and understood as belonging to a complex eschatological tableaux described therein, which may or may not remain to be fulfilled. The seven and 62-week "weeks" are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (the {{lang|la|terminus a quo}}) and terminating with the ].{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|pp=2–3}}{{sfn|Shea|1991|pp=136–37}}{{sfn|Payne|1978|p=101}} The reference to an anointed one being "cut off" in verse 26a is identified with the ] and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the 70th week,{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|pp=2–3}} which is also when Jeremiah's new "covenant" is "confirmed" (verse 27a) and ] for "iniquity" (verse 24) is made. The "abomination that desolates" is typically read in the context of the ] references made to this expression in the ] and understood as belonging to a complex eschatological tableaux described therein, which may or may not remain to be fulfilled.


Another influential way of reading the prophecy follows ] in identifying the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE as the ''terminus a quo''.{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=322}} 483 years from 445/4 BCE would extend somewhat beyond the lifetime of Christ to 39/40 CE, hence some Christological interpretations reduce the period to 476 years by viewing them as ] "]" (or "Chaldee years" {{sfn|Lloyd|1690|p=i}}), so-called on the basis that various biblical passages—such as Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Dan 7:25; 12:7)—appear to reckon time in this way in certain prophetic contexts.{{sfn|Hoehner|1978|pp=136–37}} The sixty-nine weeks of "prophetic" years are then considered to terminate with the death of Christ in 32/3 CE.{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|p=2}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1978|p=141}} The seventieth week is then separated from the sixty-ninth week by a long period of time known as the ];{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|p=2}}{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=322}} hence, the seventieth week does not begin until the end of the church age, at which point the church will be removed from the earth in an event called the ]. Finally, the future Antichrist is expected to oppress the Jewish people and bring upon the world a period of tribulation lasting three and a half years, constituting the second half of the delayed seventieth week. These readings were first popularized through the expository notes written by ] in his ] and continue to enjoy support.{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=321}} Another influential way of reading the prophecy follows ] in identifying the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE as the {{lang|la|terminus a quo}}.{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=322}} 483 years from 445/4 BCE would extend somewhat beyond the lifetime of Christ to 39/40 CE, hence some Christological interpretations reduce the period to 476 years by viewing them as ] "]s" (or "Chaldee years" {{sfn|Lloyd|1690|p=i}}), so-called on the basis that various biblical passages—such as Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Daniel 7:25; 12:7)—appear to reckon time in this way in certain prophetic contexts.{{sfn|Hoehner|1978|pp=136–37}} The sixty-nine weeks of "prophetic" years are then considered to terminate with the death of Christ in 32/3 CE.{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|p=2}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1978|p=141}} The seventieth week is then separated from the 69th week by a long period of time, known in ] speak as the church age;{{sfn|Doukhan|1979|p=2}}{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=322}} hence, the 70th week does not begin until the end of the church age, at which point the church will be removed from the earth in an event called the ]. Finally, the future Antichrist is expected to oppress the Jewish people and bring upon the world a period of tribulation lasting three and a half years, constituting the second half of the delayed seventieth week. These readings were much inspired by ] (known for both dispensationalism and the rapture idea) and later popularized through the expository notes written by ] in his ] and continue to enjoy support.{{sfn|Hess|2011|p=321}}


== See also == == See also ==
* ] * ]
* ]


== References == == References ==
Line 136: Line 145:
{{refbegin}} {{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal * {{cite journal
| last = Athas |last = Athas
| first = George |first = George
| year = 2009 |year = 2009
| title = In Search of the Seventy 'Weeks' of Daniel 9 |title = In Search of the Seventy 'Weeks' of Daniel 9
| journal = Journal of Hebrew Scriptures |journal = ]
| volume = 9 |volume = 9
| doi = 10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a2 |doi = 10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a2
|doi-access = free
| url = http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf
}}
| doi-access= free
}}
* {{cite book * {{cite book
| last = Bergsma | last = Bergsma
Line 181: Line 189:
| year = 1979 | year = 1979
| title = The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study | title = The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study
| journal = Andrews University Seminary Studies | journal = ]
| volume = 17 | volume = 17
| issue = 1 | issue = 1
Line 246: Line 254:
}} }}
* {{cite journal * {{cite journal
| last = Hess |last = Hess
| first = Richard S. |first = Richard S.
| author-link = Richard Hess |author-link = Richard Hess
| year = 2011 |year = 2011
| title = The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Timetable for the Future? |title = The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Timetable for the Future?
| journal = Bulletin for Biblical Research |journal = ]
| volume = 21 |volume = 21
| issue = 3 |issue = 3
| pages = 315–30 |pages = 315–30
| url = https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr21c02.pdf |doi = 10.2307/26424372
|jstor = 26424372
|s2cid = 248440911
|url = https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr21c02.pdf
|access-date = 2015-12-23
|archive-date = 2016-03-04
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054037/https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr21c02.pdf
|url-status = dead
}} }}
* {{cite book * {{cite book
Line 270: Line 285:
| year = 1968 | year = 1968
| title = The Prayer in Daniel Ix | title = The Prayer in Daniel Ix
| journal = Vetus Testamentum | journal = ]
| volume = 18 | volume = 18
| issue = 1 | issue = 1
Line 291: Line 306:
| year = 1990 | year = 1990
| title = The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel | title = The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel
| journal = Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft | journal = ]
| volume = 102 | volume = 102
| issue = 2 | issue = 2
Line 347: Line 362:
| year = 2001 | year = 2001
| title = Exploring the Dismal Swamp: The Identity of the Anointed One in Daniel 9:24-27 | title = Exploring the Dismal Swamp: The Identity of the Anointed One in Daniel 9:24-27
| journal = Journal of Biblical Literature | journal = ]
| volume = 120 | volume = 120
| issue = 3 | issue = 3
Line 363: Line 378:
| url = https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22montuoft | url = https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22montuoft
}} }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Nel |first1=Marius |title=Daniel 9 as part of an apocalyptic book? |journal=Verbum et Ecclesia |date=28 February 2013 |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=8 pages |doi=10.4102/ve.v34i1.707|doi-access=free |hdl=10394/16808 |hdl-access=free }}
* {{cite journal * {{cite journal
| last = Payne | last = Payne
| first = J. Barton | first = J. Barton
| author-link=J. Barton Payne
| year = 1978 | year = 1978
| title = The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks | title = The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks
| journal = Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society | journal = ]
| volume = 21 | volume = 21
| issue = 2 | issue = 2
Line 388: Line 405:
| year = 2000 | year = 2000
| title = Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning | title = Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning
| journal = Catholic Biblical Quarterly | journal = ]
| volume = 62 | volume = 62
| issue = 2 | issue = 2
Line 401: Line 418:
| year = 1996 | year = 1996
| publisher = Greenwood | publisher = Greenwood
| isbn = 9780313293290
}} }}
* {{cite book * {{cite book
Line 409: Line 427:
| year = 1935 | year = 1935
| publisher = University of Wales Press | publisher = University of Wales Press
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Saadia Gaon
| author-link = Saadia Gaon
| title = Daniel and the Scroll of Antiochus, with a commentary by Rabbi Saadia Gaon (Daniʼel ʻim targum u-ferush Saʻadyah ben Yosef Fayumi.)
| editor = ]
| year = 1981
| publisher = Committee for the Publication of Saadia's Works
| location = Jerusalem
| language = he
| oclc = 214650444 |ref={{harvid|Saadia|1981}}
}} }}
* {{cite journal * {{cite journal
Line 415: Line 444:
| year = 2011 | year = 2011
| title = The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9 | title = The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9
| journal = Journal of Ancient Judaism | journal = ]
| volume = 2 | volume = 2
| issue = 3 | issue = 3
Line 435: Line 464:
| year = 1991 | year = 1991
| title = When did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? | title = When did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?
| journal = Journal of the Adventist Theological Society | journal = ]
| volume = 2 | volume = 2
| issue = 1 | issue = 1
Line 447: Line 476:
| year = 2009a | year = 2009a
| title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1 | title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1
| journal = Biblotheca Sacra | journal = ]
| volume = 166 | volume = 166
| pages = 181–200 | pages = 181–200
Line 458: Line 487:
| year = 2009b | year = 2009b
| title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2 | title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2
| journal = Biblotheca Sacra | journal = Bibliotheca Sacra
| volume = 166 | volume = 166
| pages = 319–35 | pages = 319–35
Line 468: Line 497:
| year = 1971 | year = 1971
| title = Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting | title = Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting
| journal = Union Seminary Quarterly Review | journal = ]
| volume = 26 | volume = 26
| pages = 203–14 | pages = 203–14
Line 481: Line 510:
}} }}
* {{cite journal * {{cite journal
| last = Ulrich |last = Ulrich
| first = Dean R. |first = Dean R.
| year = 2014 |year = 2014
| title = How Early Judaism Read Daniel 9:24–27 |title = How Early Judaism Read Daniel 9:24–27
| journal = Old Testament Essays |journal = ]
| volume = 27 |volume = 27
| issue = 3 |issue = 3
| pages = 1062–83 |pages = 1062–83
| url = http://ref.scielo.org/k7zqgh |url = http://ref.scielo.org/k7zqgh
}}{{Dead link|date=February 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
}}
* {{cite book * {{cite book
| last = Walvoord | last = Walvoord
Line 504: Line 533:
| year = 2016 | year = 2016
| title = The Two Eschatological Perspectives of the Book of Daniel | title = The Two Eschatological Perspectives of the Book of Daniel
| journal = Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament | journal = ]
| volume = 30 | volume = 30
| issue = 1 | issue = 1
Line 594: Line 623:
| year = 2009 | year = 2009
| title = Do the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel date the messianic mission of Nehemiah or Jesus? | title = Do the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel date the messianic mission of Nehemiah or Jesus?
| journal = Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society | journal = ]
| volume = 52 | volume = 52
| issue = 4 | issue = 4
Line 614: Line 643:
| year = 2013 | year = 2013
| title = The Shock Factor of Divine Revelation: A Philological Approach to Daniel 8 and 9 | title = The Shock Factor of Divine Revelation: A Philological Approach to Daniel 8 and 9
| journal = Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament | journal = ]
| volume = 27 | volume = 27
| issue = 2 | issue = 2
Line 628: Line 657:
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]

Revision as of 06:36, 5 December 2024

Narrative in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel
Chapters of the Book of Daniel
Daniel's Answer to the King by Briton Rivière

Additions to Daniel:

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel) tells how Daniel prays to God to act on behalf of his people and city (Judeans and Jerusalem), and receives a detailed but cryptic prophecy of "seventy weeks" by the angel Gabriel. The prophecy has been the subject of "intense exegetical activity" since the Second Temple period. James Alan Montgomery referred to the history of this prophecy's interpretation as the "dismal swamp" of critical exegesis.

Summary

In the Book of Daniel, Daniel reads in the "books" that the desolation of Jerusalem must last for seventy years according to the prophetic words of Jeremiah (verse 2), and prays for God to act on behalf of his people and city (verses 3–19). The angel Gabriel appears and tells Daniel that he has come to give wisdom and understanding, for at the beginning of Daniel's prayer a "word" went out and Gabriel has come to declare this revelation (verses 20–23):

Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.

— Daniel 9:24–27, New Revised Standard Version

Composition and structure

14th-century fresco of Gabriel from the Tsalenjikha Cathedral by Cyrus Emanuel Eugenicus

Chapter outline

The consensus among scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish diaspora in the Persian/Hellenistic periods, to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE. The authors of the tales apparently took the name Daniel from a legendary hero mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel, and the author of the visions in turn adopted him from the tales. The point of departure is Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy as opposed to a visionary episode, but more than half the chapter is devoted to a rather lengthy prayer.

  1. Verses 1–2. Introduction, indicating the date and occasion (the reading of Jeremiah's prophecy).
  2. Verses 3–19. Daniel's prayer:
    1. An introductory statement in verses 3–4a describes how Daniel set himself to pray.
    2. The prayer:
      1. Invocation (verse 4b).
      2. Confession of sin (verses 5–11a).
      3. Acknowledgement of divine punishment (verses 11b–14), marked by the passive verb in verse 11b and the switch to God as subject in verse 12.
      4. Prayer for mercy (verses 15–19).
  3. Verses 20–27. The revelation:
    1. An introductory statement (verses 20–21a), giving the circumstances in which the revelation occurred.
    2. The epiphany of the angel (verse 21b).
    3. The angelic discourse (verses 22–27), consisting of:
      1. Prefatory remarks (verses 22–23).
      2. The prophecy of seventy weeks of years (verses 24–27).

Daniel's prayer

Modern critical scholars have sometimes argued that Daniel's prayer in verses 3–19 is secondary to chapter 9, as it contrasts sharply with the difficult Hebrew that is characteristic of Daniel. Still, it might be that the author(s) of the chapter incorporated (or adapted) a traditional prayer in the course of composition, in which case the prayer would not be a later addition. Proponents of the view that the prayer is secondary argue that the context requires a prayer of illumination and not a communal confession of sin, and the beginning and end of the prayer are marked by duplications in verses 3–4a and verses 20–21a that are most plausibly interpreted as redactional seams. However, these considerations have not proved decisive, and arguments in favor of the prayer's authenticity have also been advanced. In particular, the concluding passage in verses 20–27 contains several allusions to the language in the prayer, suggesting that it was included purposefully by the author(s) of the chapter, even if it was not originally composed by them.

Gabriel's revelation

It has also been argued that there is a "pre-Maccabean core" to the prophetic revelation delivered by Gabriel in verses 24–27, and that certain linguistic inconsistencies between the seventy weeks prophecy and other Danielic passages suggest that the second century BCE author(s)/redactor(s) of the Book of Daniel took over and modified a preexisting oracle that was already in circulation at the time of composition. These ideas have been further developed to suggest that the different redactional layers represented in this text reflect different eschatological perspectives, with the earliest one going back to a priest named Daniel who accompanied Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the fifth century BCE and the latest one to an unnamed redactor who edited this prophecy in the second century BCE so that it would function (along with other parts of the Book of Daniel) as part of "a prophetic manifesto for world domination." It is also argued that the prophecy exhibited a high degree of literary structure at an earlier stage of its development in such a way that the six infinitival clauses of verse 24 were chiastically linked to six divisions of verses 25–27 via an elaborate system of word counts, resulting in the following reconstruction of this earlier redactional stratum:

Seventy Weeks
A     To withhold the rebellion.
     B     To seal up sins.
          C     To atone for iniquity.
               D     To bring a righteous one for the ages.
                    E     To stop vision and prophecy.
                         F     To anoint the Holy One of holy ones.
                         F′     You will discern wisdom from the departure of a word to return and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one is ruler.
                    E′     You will return for seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and by the distress of the times it will be rebuilt, square and moat.
               D′     After the sixty-two weeks he will cut off an anointed one, and the coming ruler will not have the people.
          C′     He will destroy the holy city and its end will be by a flood, and by the end of the determined warfare there will be desolations.
     B′     He will take away the sacrificial offering in the other week, and confirm a covenant for many in the middle of the week.
A′     On your base will be eighty abominations, and you will pour out for desolation until a complete destruction is determined.

Genre and themes

The seventy weeks prophecy is an ex eventu prophecy in periodized form whose Sitz im Leben is the Antiochene crisis in the second century BCE, with content analogous to the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks as well as the Animal Apocalypse. In this way, the prophecy puts the Antiochene crisis in perspective by locating it within an overview of history; the specificity of the prediction is significant for the psychological effect of the revelation, which has long been recognized as a distinctive characteristic of Daniel's prophecies (cf. Ant. 10.11.7 § 267). The prophecy is also an instance of Jewish apocalyptic literature, as it belongs to the genre of revelatory literature in which a revelation is mediated to a human recipient in Daniel by an otherworldly being in the angel Gabriel that envisages eschatological salvation. Within the macro-genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, the prophecy further belongs to the subgenre known as the "historical apocalypse," which is characterized by the use of ex eventu prophecy and the presence of an interpreting angel.

The lengthy prayer in verses 3–19 is strongly Deuteronomic in its theology—Daniel's people are punished for their own sin and appeal to God for mercy. However, such theological overtones conflict with other aspects of the Book of Daniel, in which the primary sin is that of a gentile king and the course of history is arranged in advance. Consequently, scholars have variously argued that the angel ignores Daniel's prayer and that the author(s) is making the point that "the calamity is decreed and will end at the appointed time, quite apart from prayers," and/or that the prayer is not intended to influence God but is "an act of piety in itself." As Collins observes, "he deliverance promised by the angel is in no sense a response to Daniel's prayer" since "he word goes forth at the beginning of Daniel's supplication." In any case, the relationship between Daniel's prayer and the context in which it is placed, is a central issue in the contemporary scholarly interpretation of chapter 9.

Historical-critical analysis

Rembrandt van Rijn, "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem", c. 1630.

Historical background

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the last vestiges of Assyria at Harran under Ashur-uballit II, who was unsuccessfully assisted by Necho of Egypt. It was this event that Josiah lost his life. Jehoahaz of Judah replaced him, but Necho replaced him with Jehoiakim and exacted three years of servitude and tribute. Four years later Necho returned and lost again at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar II finally established the Neo-Babylonian Empire as the dominant regional power, with significant consequences for the southern kingdom of Judah. Following a revolt in 597 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar deposed Judah's king Jehoiakim, installed Jehoiachin for three months, but his rebelliousness brought Nebuchadnezzar back. Jehoiachin surrendered and this saw the first round-up of captives including Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah

2 Kings 24

12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. 13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said. 14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar finally installed Zedekiah who lasted 11 years. After a second revolt in 586 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the city of Jerusalem along with the Temple of Solomon, carrying away much of the population to Babylon. Accordingly, the subsequent period from 586 BCE to 538 BCE is known as the Babylonian exile, which came to an end when Babylon was conquered by the Persian king Cyrus the Great, who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Judah via his famous edict of restoration. The Persian period, in turn, came to an end in the first half of the fourth century BCE following the arrival of Alexander the Great, whose vast kingdom was divided upon his death among the Diadochi. The series of conflicts that ensued following Alexander's death in the wars that erupted among the Diadochi mark the beginning of the Hellenistic period in 323/2 BCE. Two of the rival kingdoms produced out of this conflict—the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty in Syria—fought for control of Palestine during the Hellenistic period.

At the start of the second century BCE, the Seleucids had the upper hand in their struggle with the Ptolemaic kingdom for regional dominance, but the earlier conflicts had left them nearly bankrupt. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to recoup some of his kingdom's fortunes by selling the post of Jewish high priest to the highest bidder, and in 171/0 BCE the existing high priest (i.e. Onias III) was deposed and murdered. Palestine was subsequently divided between those who favored the Hellenistic culture of the Seleucids and those who remained loyal to the older Jewish traditions; however, for reasons that are still not understood, Antiochus IV banned key aspects of traditional Jewish religion in 168/7 BCE—including the twice-daily continual offering (cf. Daniel 8:13; 11:31; 12:11).

Context within chapter 9

The seventy weeks prophecy is internally dated to "the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede" (Daniel 9:1), later referred to in the Book of Daniel as "Darius the Mede" (e.g. Daniel 11:1); however, no such ruler is known to history and the widespread consensus among critical scholars is that he is a literary fiction. Nevertheless, within the biblical account, the first year of Darius the Mede corresponds to the first year after the Babylonian kingdom is overthrown, i.e., 538 BCE.

Chapter 9 can be distinguished from the other "visionary" chapters of the Book of Daniel by the fact that the point of departure for this chapter is another biblical text in Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and not a visionary episode. The longstanding consensus among critical scholars has been that verses 24–27 is a paradigmatic example of inner-biblical interpretation, in which the latter text reinterprets Jeremiah's seventy years of exile as seventy weeks of years. On this view, Jeremiah's prophecy that after seventy years God would punish the Babylonian kingdom (cf. Jeremiah 25:12) and once again pay special attention to his people in responding to their prayers and restoring them to the land (cf. Jeremiah 29:10–14) could not have been fulfilled by the disappointment that accompanied the return to the land in the Persian period, hence the necessity to extend the expiration date of the prophecy to the second century BCE. Just as various elements of Daniel's visionary episodes are interpreted for him in chapters 7–8, so also Jeremiah's prophecy is interpreted for him in a manner similar to the pesher exegesis evidenced at Qumran in chapter 9. However, this consensus has recently been challenged on the grounds that Daniel prays to God following the defeat of the Babylonian kingdom precisely because Jeremiah's seventy years of exile have been completed and God promised through the prophet that he would respond to such prayers at this time, in which case the seventy weeks prophecy is not a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy but a separate prophecy altogether. These considerations have been further refined along redactional lines to suggest that the latter holds relative to an earlier "pre-canonical" stage in the text, but that the seventy weeks prophecy is, in fact, a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy relative to the final form of the text.

The seventy weeks prophecy

Coin of Antiochus IV. Reverse shows the Greek god Apollo on an omphalos. The inscription ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ, Antiochou Theou Epiphanou Nikēphorou means, "Of Antiochus, God Manifest, Bearer of Victory."

The seventy "weeks" of years are divided into three groups: a seven-week period spanning 49 years, a 62-week period spanning 434 years, and a final period of one week spanning seven years. The first seven weeks begin with the departure of a "word" to rebuild Jerusalem and ends with the arrival of an "anointed prince" (verse 25a); this "word" has generally been taken to refer to Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy and dated to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (or the first year of Nebuchadnezzar) in 605/4 BCE, but Collins objects that "he word to rebuild Jerusalem could scarcely have gone forth before it was destroyed," and prefers the "word" that Gabriel came to give Daniel in verse 23; other candidates include the edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BCE, the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE, and the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE. Candidates for the "prince" in verse 25a include Cyrus (cf. Isaiah 45:1), Joshua the High Priest, Zerubbabel, Sheshbazzar, Ezra, Nehemiah, the angelic "prince" Michael (cf. Daniel 10:21b), and even the collective people of God in the Second Temple period.

In the subsequent period of 62 weeks, or what are actually 434 years, the city is rebuilt and settled (verse 25b), at the end of which time an "anointed one shall be cut off" (verse 26a); this "anointed one" is generally considered to refer to the High Priest Onias III, whose murder outside Jerusalem in 171/0 BCE is recorded in 2 Maccabees 4:23–28. Most critical scholars see another reference to Onias III's murder in Daniel 11:22, though Ptolemy VI and the infant son of Seleucus IV have also been suggested. On the other hand, this raises the question of how 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of years (or 483 years) could have elapsed between the departure of the "word" in verse 25a, which cannot be earlier than 605/4 BCE, and the murder of Onias III in 171/170 BCE. Hence, some critical scholars follow Montgomery in thinking that there has been "a chronological miscalculation on part of the writer" who has made "wrong-headed arithmetical calculations," although others follow Goldingay's explanation that the 70 weeks are not literal chronology but the more inexact science of "chronography"; Collins opts for a middle-ground position in saying that "the figure should be considered a round number rather than a miscalculation." Others who see the calculations as being at least approximately correct if the initial seven-week period of 49 years can overlap with the 62-week period of 434 years, with the latter period spanning the time between Jeremiah's prophecy in 605/4 BCE and Onias III's murder in 171/0 BCE. Saadia Gaon thinks that the "anointed one shall be cut off" refers to a time of trouble immediately following the 434 years, where the "anointed ones" (plural), meaning, many of the anointed priests of Aaron's lineage, as well the descendants of King David, will be cut off. Saadia goes on to explain such linguistic usage in the Hebrew language, where a word is written singularly, but is actually meant to be understood in the plural context. The Hebrew word for "cut off" is כרת, which has also the connotation of "extirpation," either by dying before one's time, or by not being able to bring forth offspring into the world.

The "prince who is to come" in verse 26b is typically seen by critical scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV, though Jason and Menelaus have also been suggested. Hence, the "troops of the prince" are thought to be either the Seleucid troops that settled in Jerusalem (cf. Daniel 11:31; 1 Maccabees 1:29–40) or the Jewish hellenizers. The reference to "troops" that will "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in verse 26b is somewhat problematic since neither Jerusalem nor the temple were actually destroyed, though the city was arguably rendered desolate and the temple defiled (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:46; 2 Maccabees 6:2), and Daniel's language of destruction "seems excessive".

Saadia, who takes a different approach, explains the "prince (nagīd) who is to come" as being Titus, who came against the city at the conclusion of the 490 year period, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Imperial Roman army.

The "covenant" in verse 27a most likely refers to the covenant between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus IV reported in 1 Maccabees 1:11, with the ban on regular worship for a period that lasted approximately three and a half years alluded to in the subsequent clause (cf. Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:11). According to Saadia, the words: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (vs 27a), refers to that time shortly before the actual destruction of the Temple, a time which spanned seven years ("one week"), when God had extended to the people a chance to preserve their Temple, their laws and their polity, by acquiescing to Roman demands and leaving off their internecine strife. During this time of growing animosity against Rome, the Roman army sought to appease the Jewish nation and not to suffer their Temple to be destroyed. However, three and a half years before the Temple's demise, the Romans, through trickery and spitefulness, caused the cessation of their daily whole burnt-offerings, which culminated in the destruction of the Holy House three and a half years later.

The "abomination that desolates" in verse 27b (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54) is usually seen as a reference to either the pagan sacrifices that replaced the twice-daily Jewish offering, (cf. Daniel 11:31; 12:11; 2 Maccabees 6:5), or the pagan altar on which such offerings were made. Saadia wrote that this refers to a graven image that was erected in the Holy Place, where the Temple formerly stood.

Christological readings

Francesco Albani's 17th-century Baptism of Christ is a typical depiction with the sky opening and the Holy Spirit descending as a dove.
Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, 12th-century medieval illustration from the Hortus deliciarum of Herrad of Landsberg.

There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9 as a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The various Christological readings that have been proposed share a number of features in common: either the "anointed prince" in verse 25a or the "anointed one" in verse 26a (or both) are understood to be references to Christ, who is also sometimes thought to be the "most holy" that is anointed in verse 24 (so the Peshitta and the Vulgate). Some of the early church fathers also saw another reference to Christ in the "prince who is to come" (verse 26b), but this figure is more often identified with either the Antichrist or one of the Roman officials that oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (e.g. Titus or Vespasian).

The seven and 62-week "weeks" are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (the terminus a quo) and terminating with the baptism of Jesus. The reference to an anointed one being "cut off" in verse 26a is identified with the crucifixion of Jesus and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the 70th week, which is also when Jeremiah's new "covenant" is "confirmed" (verse 27a) and atonement for "iniquity" (verse 24) is made. The "abomination that desolates" is typically read in the context of the New Testament references made to this expression in the Olivet Discourse and understood as belonging to a complex eschatological tableaux described therein, which may or may not remain to be fulfilled.

Another influential way of reading the prophecy follows Africanus in identifying the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE as the terminus a quo. 483 years from 445/4 BCE would extend somewhat beyond the lifetime of Christ to 39/40 CE, hence some Christological interpretations reduce the period to 476 years by viewing them as 360-day "Prophetic Years" (or "Chaldee years" ), so-called on the basis that various biblical passages—such as Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Daniel 7:25; 12:7)—appear to reckon time in this way in certain prophetic contexts. The sixty-nine weeks of "prophetic" years are then considered to terminate with the death of Christ in 32/3 CE. The seventieth week is then separated from the 69th week by a long period of time, known in dispensational speak as the church age; hence, the 70th week does not begin until the end of the church age, at which point the church will be removed from the earth in an event called the rapture. Finally, the future Antichrist is expected to oppress the Jewish people and bring upon the world a period of tribulation lasting three and a half years, constituting the second half of the delayed seventieth week. These readings were much inspired by J.N. Darby (known for both dispensationalism and the rapture idea) and later popularized through the expository notes written by C. I. Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible and continue to enjoy support.

See also

References

Citations

  1. Segal 2011, p. 293 n. 31.
  2. Athas 2009, p. 2.
  3. Daniel 9:24–27
  4. Collins 1993, pp. 35–37, 60–61.
  5. Collins 1993, p. 1.
  6. Collins 1993, p. 220.
  7. ^ Collins 1993, p. 347.
  8. Gall 1895, pp. 123–26.
  9. Hartman & Di Lella 1978, pp. 245–46.
  10. Montgomery 1927, p. 362.
  11. Goldingay 1989, p. 237.
  12. Jones 1968.
  13. Collins 1993, p. 348.
  14. Laato 1990.
  15. Segal 2011, p. 294 n. 32.
  16. Grabbe 1987.
  17. ^ Waters 2016, pp. 97–107.
  18. Waters 2016, pp. 110–111.
  19. Waters 2016, pp. 98–100.
  20. ^ Collins 1993, p. 359.
  21. ^ Collins 1993, p. 360.
  22. Waters 2016, p. 98 n. 15.
  23. ^ Collins 1993, pp. 54–55.
  24. Jones 1968, p. 493.
  25. Towner 1971, p. 213.
  26. Collins 1993, pp. 359–60.
  27. Levine 2010, p. 173.
  28. Levine 2010, p. 36.
  29. Levine 2010, pp. 25–26.
  30. Daniel 8:13
  31. Daniel 11:31
  32. Daniel 12:11
  33. Lust 2002, pp. 672–73.
  34. Daniel 9:1
  35. Daniel 11:1
  36. Rowley 1935, pp. 12–66.
  37. Segal 2011, p. 289.
  38. ^ Waters 2016, p. 97.
  39. ^ Segal 2011, p. 283.
  40. Grabbe 1987, pp. 67–72.
  41. Segal 2011, p. 284.
  42. Bergsma 2006, pp. 212–25.
  43. Segal 2011, pp. 288–92, 302.
  44. Montgomery 1927, p. 391.
  45. Segal 2011, p. 293.
  46. Koch 1980, p. 150.
  47. ^ Collins 1993, p. 354.
  48. Collins 1993, pp. 354–55.
  49. Hess 2011, p. 317.
  50. ^ Waters 2016, pp. 100–101.
  51. ^ Redditt 2000, p. 238.
  52. Goldingay 1989, p. 260.
  53. Delcor 1971, p. 144.
  54. ^ Waters 2016, p. 106.
  55. ^ Saadia 1981, pp. 174–175.
  56. ^ Collins 1993, p. 355.
  57. ^ Nel 2013, p. 4.
  58. Athas 2009, p. 16.
  59. Ulrich 2014, p. 1071.
  60. Segal 2011, pp. 297–302.
  61. Daniel 10:21
  62. Waters 2016, p. 102.
  63. Meadowcroft 2001, pp. 440–49.
  64. Saadia 1981, p. 176.
  65. Redditt 2000, pp. 238–39.
  66. Athas 2009, pp. 9–12.
  67. Collins 1993, p. 382.
  68. ^ Seow 2003, p. 150.
  69. Goldingay 1989, p. 299.
  70. Montgomery 1927, p. 393.
  71. Porteous 1965, p. 134.
  72. Goldingay 1989, pp. 257–58.
  73. Segal 2011, p. 298.
  74. Collins 1993, p. 356.
  75. Athas 2009, pp. 16–17.
  76. Saadia 1981, pp. 176–177.
  77. ^ Goldingay 1989, p. 262.
  78. ^ Collins 1993, p. 357.
  79. ^ Hess 2011, p. 328.
  80. Towner 1984, p. 143.
  81. Saadia 1981, p. 178.
  82. Waters 2016, pp. 106–107.
  83. Lust 2002, p. 683.
  84. Saadia 1981, pp. 178–179.
  85. Lust 2002, pp. 682–87.
  86. Waters 2016, p. 107.
  87. Goldingay 1989, p. 263.
  88. Collins 1993, p. 358.
  89. Saadia 1981, p. 179.
  90. Ross 1996, p. 30.
  91. Tanner 2009a, pp. 200.
  92. Tanner 2009a, p. 198.
  93. ^ Doukhan 1979, pp. 2–3.
  94. Shea 1991, pp. 136–37.
  95. Payne 1978, p. 101.
  96. ^ Hess 2011, p. 322.
  97. Lloyd 1690, p. i.
  98. Hoehner 1978, pp. 136–37.
  99. ^ Doukhan 1979, p. 2.
  100. Hoehner 1978, p. 141.
  101. Hess 2011, p. 321.

Sources

Further reading

Book of Daniel
Bible chapters
Additions
Places
People
Angels
Terms
Christian interpretations
Manuscripts
Sources
Global catastrophic risks
Technological
Sociological
Ecological
Climate change
Earth Overshoot Day
Biological
Extinction
Others
Astronomical
Eschatological
Others
Fictional
Organizations
General
Categories: