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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:57, 3 June 2006 editWstruse (talk | contribs)30 edits Timing of the decree← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:36, 5 December 2024 edit undoAchar Sva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,813 edits Composition and structure: shorten 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Narrative in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel}}
The '''Prophecy of Seventy Weeks''' appears in verses 24–27 in the ninth chapter of the ], a work included in both the ] and ] ]. The ] is part of both ] and ]. In chapter nine Daniel records that an ] appears to him in response to his prayer and makes a proclamation regarding the timing of important events in the future of the ]s.
{{Daniel chapters}}
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}}


==New English Translation== == Summary ==


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):
'Seventy weeks have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to finish the transgression, to bring ] to completion, to ], to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the ], and to anoint a most holy place. So know and understand: from the going forth of the message to return and build ] until the anointed one, the Prince, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times. Now after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off and have nothing. As for the city and the ], the people of the coming prince will destroy them. But his end will come speedily like a ], until the end of the war that has been decreed, there will be desolations. He will confirm a ] with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring ] and offering to a halt on the wing of a desolating ], until the decreed end is poured out on the one who makes desolate.'


{{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.
==Context==
{{sup|25}}Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.


{{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.
According to the Book of Daniel, the vision takes place soon after ] (who may or may not be the same person as ], the ] who controlled ] either at the time of the prophecy or shortly later) began his rulership over Babylon. Prior to this, Babylon had been ruled over by ], and prior to him ], who had besieged Jerusalem while Daniel was a youth. At the beginning of the scene, Daniel relates that he had read the prophecy foretold by the ] ]. The ] was that after the ] of Jerusalem, considered ]'s home by Jews, lay in desolation for 70 years and Judah had endured 70 years of captivity, the ] would be punished and the Jews would return to Jerusalem (Jer 25:11–12, 29:10 , strictly speaking, are two separate prophecies both of which speak of the same 70 years of Babylonian captivity).
{{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 ==
Daniel, being aware of this writing and believing that the fulfillment was near at hand describes how he prayed for the ], asking God to have mercy on His rebellious people. Chapter 9 verses 20&ndash;23 describe an encounter in which the ] came to share the vision.
] by Cyrus Emanuel Eugenicus]]


=== Chapter outline ===
There are several interpretations which could constitute the 70 years period mentioned in Jeremiah 25 & 29. There are several events that may signify the beginning of "desolation" as well.


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}}
The following are three separate starting points in the captivities of Judah.
{{ordered list|type=upper-roman
| Verses 1–2. Introduction, indicating the date and occasion (the reading of Jeremiah's prophecy).
| Verses 3–19. Daniel's prayer:
{{ordered list|type=upper-latin
| An introductory statement in verses 3–4a describes how Daniel set himself to pray.
| The prayer:
{{ordered list|type=decimal
| Invocation (verse 4b).
| 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.
| Prayer for mercy (verses 15–19).
}}
}}
| Verses 20–27. The revelation:
{{ordered list|type=upper-latin
| An introductory statement (verses 20–21a), giving the circumstances in which the revelation occurred.
| The epiphany of the angel (verse 21b).
| The angelic discourse (verses 22–27), consisting of:
{{ordered list|type=decimal
| Prefatory remarks (verses 22–23).
| The prophecy of seventy weeks of years (verses 24–27).
}}
}}
}}


=== Daniel's prayer ===
* The 1st captivity of Judah started around ], in the aftermath of the ] Nebuchadnezzar takes a party of Jews captive, signalling the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the captivity mentioned in Daniel 1:1 when Daniel and his companions were taken captive.


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}}
* The 2nd captivity of Judah started in ], Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem, but leaves it standing, taking only certain groups of people captive after the Judaeans refuse to pay taxes or ] to Babylonia and then he appoints Zedekiah, the previous king's uncle, as the governor, signalling the beginning of Babylonian control over Judea. This 2nd captivity started the period of Ezekiels captivity. (Eze. 40:1)


=== Gabriel's revelation ===
* The 3rd captiviy of Judah started in about ], when Jerusalem and the Temple were burned down by Nebuchadrezzar's army, leaving them in complete desolation. Only a few of the poor were left in Jerusalem at this time. This destruction took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.(Jeremiah 52:12-16)


It has also been argued that there is a "pre-] core" to the prophetic revelation delivered by Gabriel in verses 24–27,{{sfn|Laato|1990}}{{sfn|Segal|2011|loc=p. 294 n. 32}} 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 ] that was already in circulation at the time of composition.{{sfn|Grabbe|1987}} These ideas have been further developed to suggest that the different ]al layers represented in this text reflect different ] perspectives,{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=97–107}} 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."{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=110–111}} 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 ] 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:{{sfn|Waters|2016|pp=98–100}}
There are several periods of 70 years during this captivity time frame. Only one likely fulfilles the criteria of Jeremiah 25 & 29. That fulfilment is the 70 years period of time between the 1st captivity of Judah and the release of the Judean captives by Cyrus of Persia. (2 Chr. 36:22; Ezr. 1:1, 7; 3:7; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 17; 6:3, 14; Isa. 44:28; 45:1;)


{| align="center"
* This 70 years counts from the Battle of Carchemish (1st captivity of Judah) until Jerusalem was allowed to be reconstructed by the Decree of Cyrus around ]. To make up for the several years' difference (605 to 538 is 67 years) some propose adjusting of the chronology slightly, or count 70 lunar years (lunar years being slightly shorter than solar years), or propose that 70 was a rounded number under inclusive reckoning. Others shift the termination event until the rebuilding actually began, one or two years later.
|+ Seventy Weeks
|-
| A{{in5}}To withhold the rebellion.
|-
| {{in5}}B{{in5}}To seal up sins.
|-
| {{in5|10}}C{{in5}}To atone for iniquity.
|-
| {{in5|15}}D{{in5}}To bring a righteous one for the ages.
|-
| {{in5|20}}E{{in5}}To stop vision and prophecy.
|-
| {{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|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|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.
|-
| 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 ==
It should be noted here that the date of 538 B.C. for the first year of Cyrus is based on the work of Ptolemy. Ptolemy does not give specific astronomical data to fix the date of the 1st year of Cyrus as he does with many of the other Babylonian and Persian kings. The Babylonian dynastic tablet gives 194.3 years from Yukin-Zira to the overthrow of Nabonidos. The 1st year of Yukin-Zira is astronomically fixed to the year 731 B.C. This then would make the overthrow of Nabonidos in the year 537 B.C. and the 1st year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon in the year 536 B.C. Which would then would make the 2nd year of Cyrus (when the 2nd Temple foundation was laid-- Ezra 3:8) 70 years from the 1st captivity of Judah.


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}}
* Some other 70 year periods are as follows:


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}}
# From the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar until the Temple was fully rebuilt in the sixth year of ](Hystaspes), producing a time frame of 586-516 BC or 70 years.(Jer. 52;12-14; Ezra 6:15)
# The 70 year period of Divine indignation mentioned in Zechariah 1:12. This period of 70 years ended in the 2nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes) 520 B.C. This Divine anger began when the glory of God left the Temple and Jerusalem. According to Ezekiel 8-10 this took place in the 6th year and 6th month of his captivity or the 2nd captivity of Judah, which would have been the year 590 B.C.


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


=== Historical background ===
One principal debate regarding the words in the prophecy deals with the meaning of ''Weeks.'' The Hebrew word shebu`ah or "week" is also the word for "seven." Secondly, in this instance the Hebrew word is in the male gender when normally the female version is used. There are three interpretations.


] 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 ]
#Skeptical scholars like ] claim that the weeks are really the same as the years previously decreed. This allows for the fulfillment of the prophecy to reside in the person of ]. He and other skeptics believe that the book was written as a later forgery in an effort to engender resistance against the oppression of Antiochus.
: ]
#Various commentators (e.g., some conservative ], ]) believe that the seventy weeks represent, to one degree or another, an indefinite time scale that cannot be used for definite prediction. Some Orthodox Jews hold the fulfillment to be in the ] ]. ] believed the first 69 weeks to be 69 ''seven''s of years, but the last to be an indefinite period.
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.
#A large majority of sacred ] believe each ''seven'' represents seven years. Amillennialists who hold this believe the final fulfillment to have already happened; ] hold that an ] exists between the first 69 weeks and the last. Some believe that the gap is over now that the ] has gained Jerusalem as its capital.
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}}
Few hold that the weeks in question are sets of 7 days. Some Christians have proposed such theories, but no such theory has gained any degree of acceptance.


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}}
==Timing of the decree==


=== Context within chapter 9 ===
One aspect of the 70 weeks prophecy is that it specifies a specific starting point in history before the countdown, as it were, begins. In this case it is an edict to rebuild Jerusalem and the ]. Five ]s concerning reconstruction in Judaea are recorded in the Bible.
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}}
* A decree permitting rebuilding of the 2nd Temple(Ezra 1:2-4) issued by Cyrus in the first year of his reign (539-536 BC, depending on reckoning system)
* A decree restarting the construction of the 2nd Temple after a lull and confirming Cyrus' earlier decree (Ezra 6:3-12) granted by Darius in his second year (520-518 BC for Darius Hystaspes, 422-420 BC for Darius Nothus)
* A decree authorizing the use of certain articles for the temple rites and giving certain rights to Ezra and the Jews (Ezra 7:12-26) issued by a "Artaxerxes" in his seventh year. (517-515 BC for Darius Hystaspes; 459-457 BC for Artaxerxes Longimanus, 398-397 BC for Artaxerxes Memnon)
* A decree authorizing the reconstruction of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:4-9), granted by ] in his twentieth year to ] (446-444 BC)
* A divine decree issued by YHWH (God) in the 2nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes) commanding Joshua and Zerubabbel to restart construction on the Temple. This divine command was witnessed by the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah. (Ezra 6:14) '''Zechariah 1:16''' "16 Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem."


=== The seventy weeks prophecy ===
Most Christian interpreters, following Sir Robert Anderson and/or Harold W. Hoehner, have held that only the decree of "Artaxerxes" Longimanus explicitly allows for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. However, this particular idea does not actually have strong scriptural support. The Bible itself is arguably more directly supportive of the decree of Cyrus or Darius(Hystaspes) being the key initiating edict (see Isa. 44:28;45:18 Zech.1:16, Ezra 6:14), with many Jews adhering to this same belief. A rigorous Christian interpretation of the 70 Weeks prophecy that begins the prophecy with the decree of Cyrus (rather than with Artaxerxes Longiminus' letters of support to Nehemiah) has recently been written by T.T. Schlegel (see external link below).
] 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 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}}
Other authors have speculated the decree, in a divine prophecy, could be a divine command, which God's responses to Ezra's (several months after his decree was issued) or Nehemiah's prayer (in the month of ] the year before his decree was issued) would presumably represent. Jeremiah's prophecies of desolation at the fall of Jerusalem are also supplied as an opening date. Here it is said that the first seven weeks end at the Cyrus decree (exactly 49 years after the Fall of Jerusalem).


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.
==Division between the periods==


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}}
In the prophecy the 69 weeks prior to the last are separated into a chunk of seven ''seven''s and another chunk of sixty-two ''seven''s. There is little description in the prophecy to enlighten one as to why the division is there in the first place. Some, such as ], suggest that the first set of 49 years represents the gap between one decree and another. His viewpoint is that the first decree by Cyrus represents the beginning of the prophecy, and the decree by Darius is represented by the second part of the prophecy (admittedly, this would force 49 years to lie between 538 BC and ], but Young does not hold that the years are definite measures of time).


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}}
Another viewpoint is that the first seven set of seven years represents the time it took to clean out Jerusalem and restore the city. This is ]'s supposition, but he does not consider it particular important in the grand scheme of things.


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}}
A composite interpretation involves the identification of the Ezra decree's progenitor with Artaxerxes Memnon. Then, there are 49 years between Nehemiah's decree and Ezra's decree. Since Nehemiah's decree was followed by a start to rebuilding and Ezra's decree was followed by the end of the temple building and the dedication of the new temple, the two events can also stand as the endpoints of the restoration period.


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}}
==Fulfillment==


== Christological readings ==
A variety of opinion is present as to possible fulfillment of the prophecy. This passage has caused great concern for Jews as it suggests through any cursory calculation that their ] should already have come. It is for this reason that a curse was placed on any who attempt to calculate the end times. ], better known as "Maimonides", is one of the most prominent exegetes in Jewish history, and he wrote of this exact concern in his ]. His viewpoint was that the timing was sealed up so that none should attempt to calculate when the Messiah was coming, and he was concerned that the "untutored" would be led astray upon finding that the Messiah's time had already come. ], one of the most respected teachers in ] for his work in assemblage of the ], had a less hopeful viewpoint on the matter, indicating that the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy was long past. (] 98a and 97a)


]'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}}]]
] who hold that Daniel is a ] ] generally hold that Antiochus Epiphanes is the fulfillment of the pseudo-prophecy found therein. Many conservative scholars believe that Antiochus is the fulfillment of other prophecies in Daniel without being the fulfillment of this one.


] of ].]]
Some critics on both sides believe that no intelligible specific fulfillment exists. Among these are J.A. Montgomery and Edward Young. Conservatives respond that the words "Know and understand" in the prophecy imply an achievable solution.


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}}
One traditional chronology of the 69 weeks has been done from Ezra's decree in 458 BC to AD 26, the alleged date of Christ's baptism, a span of 483 solar years. The problem is that the prophecy is accurate only to the year, and even then very roughly. Some have used other methods to determine the chronology, some exact to the day.


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.
] used lunar data to fix the date of the first day of the first month of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the day implied in Nehemiah) to ], ]. He showed that, based on various apparent refererences to the ] both as three and a half years and also as 1260 days, 360 days could be fixed as the length of what he called a "prophetic year". He fixed the end date to ], ], which he offered as the date of the ]. ] and others have since concurred with this viewpoint. There have been objections raised to some of Anderson's calculations, with debate on both sides. For instance, later calculations have confirmed that Anderson was off by two days, as the opening date was a Friday, but the closing date a Sunday, something that could not happen in a whole number of seven-time periods. Also, Babylonian records appear to show a leap month in 445 BC (so Nisan 1, the date of the decree, should be one month later on April 13). Moreover, Sunday, April 6 was almost certainly not Nisan 10, and more likely Nisan 6, with Passover eight days later on Monday the 14th.


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}}
] set forth revisions to Anderson and gave an opening date of ], ] (the one year shift being due to a different accession date of Artaxerxes) with the end of the 69 weeks on ], ]. The same errors with Anderson's calculations also plague Hoehner's, for he miscalculated the length of a year. The leap month means that Nisan 1 probably occurred on April 3 or 4. ] set forth revisions to Anderson and Hoehner based on the year of Artaxerxes succession as ] ] which Hoehner timed as ] ]. According to Bigalke, the end of the 69 weeks may be ], AD 33. However, this event loses its significance as the Triumphal Entry, for it does not occur on Sunday as church tradition dictates, nor on Monday as some new interpretations report. Bigalke did indicate the problem of a 26 March date since it would be too soon before Jesus' arrival in Bethany and the Passover. He stated that Hoehner did admit the possibility that Artaxerxes may have given permission to Nehemiah later than 1 Nisan. Bigalke's conclusion was if the starting date was 5 Nisan (which Hoehner left possible) then the number of days would be an exact 173,880 days.


== See also ==
The 19th century theologian ] offered a completely different Christian solution and utilized strong internal biblical evidence to begin the prophecy with the decree of Cyrus (see Isa. 44:28, 45:13) and end the 69th week with the birth of Jesus' rather than with Jesus' Triumphal Entry. The recent work by T.T. Schlegel further builds upon West's original scholarship and adds additional historical, hermeneutical and textual support.
* ]


== References ==
Another interpretation can be found at a Christian apologetics ministry, The Moorings. It dates the decree to the divine command in response to Nehemiah's prayer in chapter 1 of his book, on ], 446 BC. Counting 173 880 days results in ], 31, which is given as the date of the Transfiguration. An extension is then added counting off 62 weeks (Dan. 9:26), but this time, in ordinary seven-day periods, to February 20, 33 (depending on reckoning), which is postulated to be the date of Lazarus' resurrection (and the subsequent warrant of arrest to Jesus, John 11:45-57). They back this up with a ]ic passage citing approximately 40 days between a warrant of arrest and a crucifixion of a certain "Yeshu", deemed to be a corruption of the Hebrew form of Jesus. There are 42 days from the condemnation to the crucifixion, if the latter is placed on the traditional date of April 3, 33.
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|20em}}


=== Sources ===
More on the fringes, ], spiritual leader of the self-proclaimed cult, Strong City, calculated 490 years, or 70 "weeks of years" from ], ], the date traditionally given for ] nailing his ] to the door of ]. Thus he predicts the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy for late ]!
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal
|last = Athas
|first = George
|year = 2009
|title = In Search of the Seventy 'Weeks' of Daniel 9
|journal = ]
|volume = 9
|doi = 10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a2
|doi-access = free
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Bergsma
| first = J. S.
| author-link = John Bergsma
| title = The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran
| year = 2006
| publisher = Brill
| series = Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
| volume = 115
| doi = 10.1163/ej.9789004152991.i-353
| isbn = 9789047410560
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Collins
| first = John J.
| author-link = John J. Collins
| title = Daniel
| year = 1993
| publisher = Fortress
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=H9XYAAAAMAAJ
| isbn = 9780800660406
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Delcor
| first = Mathias
| title = Le Livre de Daniel
| series = Sources Bibliques
| year = 1971
| publisher = Gabalda
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Doukhan
| first = Jacques
| year = 1979
| title = The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study
| journal = ]
| volume = 17
| issue = 1
| pages = 1–22
| url = https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1979-1/1979-1-01.pdf
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Gall
| first = August Freiherr von
| title = Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel: eine Untersuchung
| year = 1895
| publisher = Walter De Gruyter Inc.
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Goldingay
| first = John
| author-link = John Goldingay
| editor1-last = Watts
| editor1-first = John D.
| editor2-last = Watts
| editor2-first = James W.
| editor3-last = Metzger
| editor3-first = Bruce M.
| title = Daniel
| year = 1989
| publisher = Thomas Nelson
| series = Word Biblical Commentary
| volume = 30
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Goldstein
| first = Jonathan A.
| author-link = Jonathan A. Goldstein
| title = I Maccabees
| year = 1976
| series = The Anchor Yale Bible
| volume = 41
| publisher = Doubleday
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Grabbe
| first = Lester L.
| author-link = Lester L. Grabbe
| chapter = 'The End of The Desolation of Jerusalem': From Jeremiah's 70 Years to Daniel's 70 Weeks of Years
| editor1-last = Evans
| editor1-first = Craig A.
| editor2-last = Stinespring
| editor2-first = William F.
| title = Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee
| series = Homage Series
| year = 1987
| publisher = Scholars Press
}}
* {{cite book
| last1 = Hartman
| first1 = Louis Francis
| last2 = Di Lella
| first2 = Alexander A.
| title = The Book of Daniel
| year = 1978
| series = The Anchor Yale Bible
| volume = 23
| publisher = Doubleday
}}
* {{cite journal
|last = Hess
|first = Richard S.
|author-link = Richard Hess
|year = 2011
|title = The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Timetable for the Future?
|journal = ]
|volume = 21
|issue = 3
|pages = 315–30
|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
| last = Hoehner
| first = Harold W.
| author-link = Harold Hoehner
| title = Chronological Aspects of the Life Of Christ
| year = 1978
| publisher = Zondervan
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Jones
| first = Bruce William
| year = 1968
| title = The Prayer in Daniel Ix
| journal = ]
| volume = 18
| issue = 1
| pages = 488–93
| doi = 10.1163/156853368X00375
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Koch
| first = Klaus
| author-link = Klaus Koch
| title = Das Buch Daniel
| year = 1980
| series = Erträge der Forschung
| volume = 144
| publisher = Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Laato
| first = Antti
| year = 1990
| title = The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel
| journal = ]
| volume = 102
| issue = 2
| pages = 212–25
| doi = 10.1515/zatw.1990.102.2.212
| s2cid = 171004193
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Levine
| first = Amy-Jill
| author-link = Amy-Jill Levine
| chapter = Daniel
| editor1-last = Coogan
| editor1-first = Michael D.
| editor2-last = Brettler
| editor2-first = Marc Z.
| editor3-last = Newsom
| editor3-first = Carol A.
| display-editors = 3
| editor4-last = Perkins
| editor4-first = Pheme
| title = The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version
| year = 2010
| publisher = Oxford University Press
| edition = 4th
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Lloyd
| first = William
| author-link = William Lloyd (bishop of Worcester)
| title = An Exposition of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks
| year = 1690
| url = http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A48821.0001.001
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Lust
| first = Johan
| chapter = Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel. The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation
| editor1-last = Collins
| editor1-first = John J.
| editor2-last = Flint
| editor2-first = Peter W.
| title = The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception
| series = Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
| volume = 83/2
| pages = 671–688
| year = 2002
| publisher = Brill
| doi = 10.1163/9789004276093_019
| isbn = 9789004276093
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Meadowcroft
| first = Tim
| year = 2001
| title = Exploring the Dismal Swamp: The Identity of the Anointed One in Daniel 9:24-27
| journal = ]
| volume = 120
| issue = 3
| pages = 429–49
| doi = 10.2307/3267901
| jstor = 3267901
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Montgomery
| first = James A.
| author-link = James Alan Montgomery
| title = A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel
| year = 1927
| publisher = T&T Clark
| 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
| last = Payne
| first = J. Barton
| author-link=J. Barton Payne
| year = 1978
| title = The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks
| journal = ]
| volume = 21
| issue = 2
| pages = 97–115
| url = http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-2/21-2-pp097-115_JETS.pdf
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Porteous
| first = Norman W.
| author-link = Norman Porteous
| title = Daniel: A Commentary
| series = The Old Testament Library
| year = 1965
| publisher = Westminster John Knox Press
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Redditt
| first = Paul L.
| year = 2000
| title = Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning
| journal = ]
| volume = 62
| issue = 2
| pages = 236–49
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Ross
| first = Leslie D.
| title = Medieval Art: A Topical Dictionary
| url = https://archive.org/details/medievalarttopic00ross
| url-access = registration
| year = 1996
| publisher = Greenwood
| isbn = 9780313293290
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Rowley
| first = H. H.
| author-link = H. H. Rowley
| title = Darius the Mede and the Four Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories
| year = 1935
| 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
| last = Segal
| first = Michael
| year = 2011
| title = The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9
| journal = ]
| volume = 2
| issue = 3
| pages = 283–303
| doi = 10.13109/jaju.2011.2.3.283
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Seow
| first = C.L.
| title = Daniel
| year = 2003
| publisher = Westminster John Knox Press
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nuLapFR3AX4C
| isbn = 9780664256753
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Shea
| first = William H.
| year = 1991
| title = When did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?
| journal = ]
| volume = 2
| issue = 1
| pages = 115–38
| url = http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/428
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Tanner
| first = J. Paul
| author-link = J. Paul Tanner
| year = 2009a
| title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1
| journal = ]
| volume = 166
| pages = 181–200
| url = http://www.paultanner.org/English%20HTML/Publ%20Articles/Daniel's%2070th%20Wk%20-%20BibSac%20Article%201%20-%20Dr%20Tanner.pdf
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Tanner
| first = J. Paul
| author-link = J. Paul Tanner
| year = 2009b
| title = Is Daniel's Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2
| journal = Bibliotheca Sacra
| volume = 166
| pages = 319–35
| url = http://paultanner.org/English%20HTML/Publ%20Articles/Daniel's%2070th%20Wk%20-%20BibSac%20Article%202%20-%20Dr%20Tanner.pdf
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Towner
| first = W. Sibley
| year = 1971
| title = Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting
| journal = ]
| volume = 26
| pages = 203–14
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Towner
| first = W. Sibley
| title = Daniel
| series = Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
| year = 1984
| publisher = John Knox Press
}}
* {{cite journal
|last = Ulrich
|first = Dean R.
|year = 2014
|title = How Early Judaism Read Daniel 9:24–27
|journal = ]
|volume = 27
|issue = 3
|pages = 1062–83
|url = http://ref.scielo.org/k7zqgh
}}{{Dead link|date=February 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* {{cite book
| last = Walvoord
| first = John F.
| author-link = John Walvoord
| title = Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation
| year = 1971
| publisher = Moody Press
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Waters
| first = B. V.
| year = 2016
| title = The Two Eschatological Perspectives of the Book of Daniel
| journal = ]
| volume = 30
| issue = 1
| pages = 91–111
| doi = 10.1080/09018328.2016.1122292
| doi-access= free
}}
{{refend}}


==See also== == Further reading ==
{{refbegin}}
* ]
* ]


* {{Cite book
==External links==
| last = Collins
*Articles on ]'s calculations and similar chronologies
| first = John J.
**
| author-link = John J. Collins
**
| title = The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
**
| year = 1998
**
| publisher = Eerdmans
**
| url = https://archive.org/details/apocalypticimagi0000coll_f4q8
**
| url-access = registration
**
| page =
*Link to an alternative Christian solution that builds upon the original work of the respected 19th century theologian ]
| isbn = 9780802843715
**
}}
*Other Articles
* {{Cite book
**
| last = Collins
| first = John J.
| author-link = John J. Collins
| title = Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism
| year = 2001
| publisher = BRILL
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=M8s3cp97b-AC
| isbn = 9780391041103
}}
* {{Cite book
| last = Collins
| first = John J.
| author-link = John J. Collins
| chapter = Current Issues in the Study of Daniel
| editor1-last = Collins
| editor1-first = John J.
| editor2-last = Flint
| editor2-first = Peter W.
| editor3-last = VanEpps
| editor3-first = Cameron
| title = The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception
| year = 2002
| publisher = BRILL
| chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=oAVPfTe_wkYC&pg=PA2
| isbn = 978-9004116757
}}
* {{Cite book
| last = Collins
| first = John J.
| author-link = John J. Collins
| chapter = From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End
| editor1-last = McGinn
| editor1-first = Bernard
| editor2-last = Collins
| editor2-first = John J.
| editor3-last = Stein
| editor3-first = Stephen J.
| title = The Continuum History of Apocalypticism
| year = 2003
| publisher = Continuum
| chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=7UlbWioOV7sC&pg=PA64
| isbn = 9780826415202
}}
* {{Cite book
| last = Collins
| first = John J.
| author-link = John J. Collins
| chapter = Daniel
| editor1-last = Lieb
| editor1-first = Michael
| editor2-last = Mason
| editor2-first = Emma
| editor3-last = Roberts
| editor3-first = Jonathan
| title = The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible
| year = 2013
| publisher = Oxford UNiversity Press
| chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=jgPn26iYzagC&pg=PP140
| isbn = 9780191649189
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = McFall
| first = Leslie
| year = 2009
| title = Do the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel date the messianic mission of Nehemiah or Jesus?
| journal = ]
| volume = 52
| issue = 4
| pages = 673–718
| url = http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%2052-4%20673-718%20McFall.pdf
}}
* {{cite web
| last = Rodriguez
| first = Angel Manuel
| author-link = Angel Manuel Rodriguez
| year = 1994
| title = The 70 Weeks and 457 B.C.
| publisher = Biblical Research Institute
| url = http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/prophecy/70-weeks-and-457-bc
}}
* {{cite journal
| last = Zuiddam
| first = Benno A.
| year = 2013
| title = The Shock Factor of Divine Revelation: A Philological Approach to Daniel 8 and 9
| journal = ]
| volume = 27
| issue = 2
| pages = 247–67
| doi = 10.1080/09018328.2013.851515
| s2cid = 170653716
}}
{{refend}}


{{Book of Daniel}}
==References==
{{Authority control}}
*Sir Robert Anderson, ''The Coming Prince'' (ISBN 0825421152)
{{Doomsday}}
*Ron J. Bigalke Jr., "Government of the Future," in ''One World'' (ISBN 0974981184)
]
*Harold W. Hoehner, ''Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ'' (ISBN 0310262119)
]
*Clarence Larkin, ''The Book of Daniel'' (ISBN 0766185737)
]
*John F. Walvoord, ''Daniel: The Key To Prophetic Revelation'' (ISBN 0802417531)
]
*T. T. Schlegel, ''Know Therefore and Understand: A Biblical Explication of the First 69 Weeks of Daniel 9'' (ISBN 0970433093)
]

] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]

Latest 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: