anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
I'm aware of the difference in punctuation/translation in Daniel 9:24-27 between the Masoretic and Christian texts.
What I would like to know is, if possible, the specific views, from non-Christians (like from Jews or "skeptics", or Muslims if they're aware of this passage) only if possible. I don't really want to know Christian input, because I think I'm already fairly aware of it, of these things:
What does the "from the emergence of the word" in Daniel 9:24 refer to? I've read that it could refer to the "word" earlier mentioned in Daniel 9 which was sent when Daniel began his supplication, the "word" mentioned in verse 23, which, from my understanding, is the same Hebrew word for "word" in verse 24, which is "debar" or something like that. I'm guessing it could refer to Isaiah 45:1-13 where it appears Cyrus is said to build Jerusalem and let the captives go, and that "to restore and to build" meant to restore the people to the city and to build the city, so it wasn't merely a redundancy. Also, I've read the "word" could have been in reference to Jeremiah, perhaps partially Jeremiah 30:17, 18. Verse 18 says "Thus saith HaShem: Behold, I will turn the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have compassion on his dwelling-places; and the city shall be builded upon her own mound, and the palace shall be inhabited upon its wonted place". Since Daniel is portrayed as reading something from Jeremiah in Daniel 9:2, and Jeremiah mentions 70 years of desolation for Jerusalem, perhaps this is what Daniel had in mind when he said "from the emergence of the word" in Daniel 9:24?
Ok, there's more, heh..
When was the "emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" in verse 24?
Who was the first "anointed one", the "anointed one" in verse 25? Cyrus, who is called the Lord's anointed in Isaiah 45:1? Zerrubabel? The high priest Joshua?
When is the end of the first "seven weeks" in verse 25, where this "anointed one" is mentioned?
Who was the second "anointed one" said to be "cut off" and "he will not have" mentioned in verse 26? the high priest Onias III? the high priest Alexander Yannai? Herod Agrippa? The last high priest before the destruction of the temple, Ananias? The high priesthood itself? The interesting thing from what I've read is that most of the time "cut off" was in reference to a "bad" person, so if this prophecy were about Jesus, it could be seen as a Jewish reference to an "evil" Jesus. Also, "cut off" doesn't necessarily mean killed. It could mean spiritually "cut off", like from God. From a Jewish point of view, 586BCE, from perhaps something that Jeremiah said, to 537BCE, the year Cyrus issued his decree, to Alexander Yannai, who was high priest from 103BCE-73BCE, who was "cut off" from God for being "evil". There's a gap between the 69th week and 70th week, but some Christians also believe in a gap in the weeks. 586BCE to 537BCE is "7 weeks" or "49 years", then "62 weeks" or "434 years" brings one to 103BCE and high priest Alexander Yannai. That is a Jewish point of view.
Who was the "prince to come" who "destroyed the city and the holy" in verse 26? I've read the word "destroy" here could mean ruin, and it or some tense of it or whatever, I don't know, is translated as "to corrupt" in some Bible versions of Daniel 11:7, and is translated as "corrupt" in Genesis 6:11 and in other places. And, in Daniel 8:24, mention is made of the same word in reference to what was done to "the holy people". Unless "the holy people" were totally destroyed, and thus no Jews were left, I doubt "destroy" necessarily meant "totally destroy". So, this passage can be interpreted as not a total destruction of "the city and the holy". This is where some believe it's a reference to what occurred with Antiochus Epiphanes, which is described in 1st Maccabees, where his "people" corrupted/ruined/partially destroyed Jerusalem, and "destroyed" some of its people, and corrupted/ruined/partially destroyed the Sanctuary. Also, even if one takes a "word" from an "Artaxerxes", either in his 7th or 20th year according to a Christian view, (although I've read that it could have been Artaxerxes Mnemon, not Artaxerxes Longimanus, and if so, that could mess up the Christian dates), can it really be definitively dated from around 457BCE to 444BCE? I've also read that supposedly the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was actually 455/454BCE, because he supposedly "co-ruled" with his father for 10 years. If so, that would make the 7th year of his reign around 467 BCE. Lots of possibilities for what is supposedly one of the best prophecies of Jesus in my opinion.
If one uses the 444BCE date, one would need to use "prophetic" or some other type of "special year" from my knowledge, otherwise I think it would overshoot the time Jesus supposedly died.
Also, there's the somewhat intriguing, to me at least, idea that Daniel used "after the 62 weeks" instead of "after the 69 weeks". If he had said the latter, there might not be the theory that perhaps some of Daniel's "70 weeks" of years were concurrent with each other. This is not a new way of looking at Daniel's 70 weeks. Even in Christian thought there's this way of looking at Daniel 9, like at this website: http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article596.cfm where Mnemon is mentioned in a theory as the proper "Artaxerxes". Seeing the first 7 weeks of years as part of the 62 weeks of years, instead of separate, could bring the dating between the "word" of Jeremiah to a supposed second "anointed" one, supposedly Onias III, more in line than otherwise. Of course, it can be claimed that "Daniel" was writing most/all of the "70 weeks" of years as history in the 2nd century BCE instead of as prophecy in the 6th century BCE, and that he wasn't completely aware of the dates for events, and/or that he simply wanted to fit events to a "70 weeks of years" total pattern so he could correlate it with the "70 years of Jerusalem's desolation" referred to in the book of Jeremiah.
So, basically, I'm wanting to know the specific time line and figures involved, from non-Christian points of view of Daniel 9:24-27.
I'm aware that there is supposedly a 166 year difference between some Jewish chronology and secular/Christian chronology. This is based on the Seder Olam?
And an interesting thing I found on the net, from here, http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=3;t=000141, this guy translates an old Greek version of Daniel 9:25-26 as saying:
25: Know and understand and open and rejoice and discover the divine order to begin to build jerusalem the city of the Lord.
26: and (there will be) 7 + 70 + 62 weeks to the anointed one, it will be abandoned and the anointed one will not be, and the kingdom of gentiles will ruin the city, and he will bring to an end with wrath and until the time of the end with war he will make war.
Then the translator said:
Fascinating. Imagine if instead of 69 weeks until an annointed one, there were actually 139 total, and that it meant 139 weeks, I guess, from 139 years into the Seleucid rule, 172BCE, which I guess would mean an "anointed one" should have shown up around 802CE. Or, maybe 139 weeks from the writing of Daniel. Whatever it means, since if it really says 139 weeks it's so different from modern Bibles, it's fascinating if true.
One last thing (for now), here's a somewhat fascinating non-Christian way of looking at Daniel's 70 weeks, starting it from a decree from Cyrus and ending them at the time of Antiochus, focusing on the idea that Daniel said "seventy sevens". Note the 7's at the bottom of this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html
Anyway, I apologize for my many questions, but I'd just like to see your views on this. Thanks.
What I would like to know is, if possible, the specific views, from non-Christians (like from Jews or "skeptics", or Muslims if they're aware of this passage) only if possible. I don't really want to know Christian input, because I think I'm already fairly aware of it, of these things:
What does the "from the emergence of the word" in Daniel 9:24 refer to? I've read that it could refer to the "word" earlier mentioned in Daniel 9 which was sent when Daniel began his supplication, the "word" mentioned in verse 23, which, from my understanding, is the same Hebrew word for "word" in verse 24, which is "debar" or something like that. I'm guessing it could refer to Isaiah 45:1-13 where it appears Cyrus is said to build Jerusalem and let the captives go, and that "to restore and to build" meant to restore the people to the city and to build the city, so it wasn't merely a redundancy. Also, I've read the "word" could have been in reference to Jeremiah, perhaps partially Jeremiah 30:17, 18. Verse 18 says "Thus saith HaShem: Behold, I will turn the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have compassion on his dwelling-places; and the city shall be builded upon her own mound, and the palace shall be inhabited upon its wonted place". Since Daniel is portrayed as reading something from Jeremiah in Daniel 9:2, and Jeremiah mentions 70 years of desolation for Jerusalem, perhaps this is what Daniel had in mind when he said "from the emergence of the word" in Daniel 9:24?
Ok, there's more, heh..
When was the "emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" in verse 24?
Who was the first "anointed one", the "anointed one" in verse 25? Cyrus, who is called the Lord's anointed in Isaiah 45:1? Zerrubabel? The high priest Joshua?
When is the end of the first "seven weeks" in verse 25, where this "anointed one" is mentioned?
Who was the second "anointed one" said to be "cut off" and "he will not have" mentioned in verse 26? the high priest Onias III? the high priest Alexander Yannai? Herod Agrippa? The last high priest before the destruction of the temple, Ananias? The high priesthood itself? The interesting thing from what I've read is that most of the time "cut off" was in reference to a "bad" person, so if this prophecy were about Jesus, it could be seen as a Jewish reference to an "evil" Jesus. Also, "cut off" doesn't necessarily mean killed. It could mean spiritually "cut off", like from God. From a Jewish point of view, 586BCE, from perhaps something that Jeremiah said, to 537BCE, the year Cyrus issued his decree, to Alexander Yannai, who was high priest from 103BCE-73BCE, who was "cut off" from God for being "evil". There's a gap between the 69th week and 70th week, but some Christians also believe in a gap in the weeks. 586BCE to 537BCE is "7 weeks" or "49 years", then "62 weeks" or "434 years" brings one to 103BCE and high priest Alexander Yannai. That is a Jewish point of view.
Who was the "prince to come" who "destroyed the city and the holy" in verse 26? I've read the word "destroy" here could mean ruin, and it or some tense of it or whatever, I don't know, is translated as "to corrupt" in some Bible versions of Daniel 11:7, and is translated as "corrupt" in Genesis 6:11 and in other places. And, in Daniel 8:24, mention is made of the same word in reference to what was done to "the holy people". Unless "the holy people" were totally destroyed, and thus no Jews were left, I doubt "destroy" necessarily meant "totally destroy". So, this passage can be interpreted as not a total destruction of "the city and the holy". This is where some believe it's a reference to what occurred with Antiochus Epiphanes, which is described in 1st Maccabees, where his "people" corrupted/ruined/partially destroyed Jerusalem, and "destroyed" some of its people, and corrupted/ruined/partially destroyed the Sanctuary. Also, even if one takes a "word" from an "Artaxerxes", either in his 7th or 20th year according to a Christian view, (although I've read that it could have been Artaxerxes Mnemon, not Artaxerxes Longimanus, and if so, that could mess up the Christian dates), can it really be definitively dated from around 457BCE to 444BCE? I've also read that supposedly the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was actually 455/454BCE, because he supposedly "co-ruled" with his father for 10 years. If so, that would make the 7th year of his reign around 467 BCE. Lots of possibilities for what is supposedly one of the best prophecies of Jesus in my opinion.
If one uses the 444BCE date, one would need to use "prophetic" or some other type of "special year" from my knowledge, otherwise I think it would overshoot the time Jesus supposedly died.Also, there's the somewhat intriguing, to me at least, idea that Daniel used "after the 62 weeks" instead of "after the 69 weeks". If he had said the latter, there might not be the theory that perhaps some of Daniel's "70 weeks" of years were concurrent with each other. This is not a new way of looking at Daniel's 70 weeks. Even in Christian thought there's this way of looking at Daniel 9, like at this website: http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article596.cfm where Mnemon is mentioned in a theory as the proper "Artaxerxes". Seeing the first 7 weeks of years as part of the 62 weeks of years, instead of separate, could bring the dating between the "word" of Jeremiah to a supposed second "anointed" one, supposedly Onias III, more in line than otherwise. Of course, it can be claimed that "Daniel" was writing most/all of the "70 weeks" of years as history in the 2nd century BCE instead of as prophecy in the 6th century BCE, and that he wasn't completely aware of the dates for events, and/or that he simply wanted to fit events to a "70 weeks of years" total pattern so he could correlate it with the "70 years of Jerusalem's desolation" referred to in the book of Jeremiah.
So, basically, I'm wanting to know the specific time line and figures involved, from non-Christian points of view of Daniel 9:24-27.
I'm aware that there is supposedly a 166 year difference between some Jewish chronology and secular/Christian chronology. This is based on the Seder Olam?
And an interesting thing I found on the net, from here, http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=3;t=000141, this guy translates an old Greek version of Daniel 9:25-26 as saying:
25: Know and understand and open and rejoice and discover the divine order to begin to build jerusalem the city of the Lord.
26: and (there will be) 7 + 70 + 62 weeks to the anointed one, it will be abandoned and the anointed one will not be, and the kingdom of gentiles will ruin the city, and he will bring to an end with wrath and until the time of the end with war he will make war.
Then the translator said:
The Old Greek - (150 B.C.E. or there abouts) This is not the translation that ended up in the later greek septuagint. I am not totally certain of the accuracy of my translation, but it is clear that there is only one anointed one in this translation and there is no punctuation mark possible between 7 and 62 because the text actually says 7 + 70 + 62. No idea what it is referring to despite the word biblical commentary which means that this = 172 B.C.E. ( apparently 139 years into the Seleucid rule).
Needless to say, if this is the original text of Daniel and it is by far our earliest text although since it is a greek translation there is no way to know if it is a good one, but if it is, then we have the wrong text of Daniel 9 in every modern version of the Bible used today!
Needless to say, if this is the original text of Daniel and it is by far our earliest text although since it is a greek translation there is no way to know if it is a good one, but if it is, then we have the wrong text of Daniel 9 in every modern version of the Bible used today!
Fascinating. Imagine if instead of 69 weeks until an annointed one, there were actually 139 total, and that it meant 139 weeks, I guess, from 139 years into the Seleucid rule, 172BCE, which I guess would mean an "anointed one" should have shown up around 802CE. Or, maybe 139 weeks from the writing of Daniel. Whatever it means, since if it really says 139 weeks it's so different from modern Bibles, it's fascinating if true.
One last thing (for now), here's a somewhat fascinating non-Christian way of looking at Daniel's 70 weeks, starting it from a decree from Cyrus and ending them at the time of Antiochus, focusing on the idea that Daniel said "seventy sevens". Note the 7's at the bottom of this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html
Anyway, I apologize for my many questions, but I'd just like to see your views on this. Thanks.
Last edited: