The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

[spin]

oh spin, you are so easily riled -- a trait too commonly found among those who love to use insulting, sarcastic and demeaning language to refer to their opponents and their arguments.

You say you know B's arguments but you avoid my point about the exchange, of course. Your points fail to anticipate his replies at every turn -- just as his do yours. Both parties would do well to step back and ask why.

But B does have one quality you lack .... re-read the first sentence.

But all the finest horsemen out — the men to Beat the Band —
You’ll find amongst the crowd that ride their races in the Stand.

[neilgodfrey]

But all the finest horsemen out — the men to Beat the Band —
You’ll find amongst the crowd that ride their races in the Stand.

Of course --- the language of intellectual bullying and a focus on the surface tit for tat is the only way to go..... even after a decade . . . .

[Peter Kirby]

If spin proves to be incorrigible and if the task is of any importance... maybe redirect the questioning and commenting in such a way that it might help us to get at the root of whatever the issues at hand are?

[spin]

But all the finest horsemen out — the men to Beat the Band —
You’ll find amongst the crowd that ride their races in the Stand.

Of course --- the language of intellectual bullying and a focus on the surface tit for tat is the only way to go..... even after a decade . . . .

Let's face it, Neil, you broke Wheaton's law three times. You're on a roll with this talk about bullying. Why not find another parade to tinkle on?

One way to put an end to this amusing tweedledum and tweedledee duel would be to require each contestant to present a clear statement of each other's argument, along with clear statement and understanding of each other's assumptions, that meets the approval of their opponent -- and only after demonstrating that each fully understands the primary point and argument and assumptions of the other to proceed to demonstrate what they see as the flaws.

Thanks for that sage advice, Neil.

Anything to help end the interminable war between the big-enders and the little-enders.

But Neil, what do posterior dimensions have to do with the discussion?

Swift's point: Everything, yet nothing. Each time tweedledum makes a point it is so damn predictable to the spectator how tweedledee will respond. Neither contestant has any interest in addressing the fundamentals of the position of the other. That would be too much work, too laborious, too boring. What's happening now is much more fun.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Zec 4:9: "The hands of Zerub'babel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you."

Still beating yourself because you can't get Zerubbabel into Zech 6.

Still nothing. As you can't put Zerubbabel into the discourse of Zech 6, you don't get anywhere. There is a scholarly body of work that deals with the disappearance of Zerubbabel. You're trying to reinvent the wheel because of your prior commitments. Enjoy.

When Zechariah wrote his book, Zerubbabel was still alive because Zechariah predicted that Zerubbabel would complete the temple. So No Zerubbabel in Zech 6 is irrelevant. He had to be in Jerusalem when Jeshua (allegedly) received the crowns. Period.

I guess there were only four kings in the Persian empire

Ok, I do not think that "Daniel" would propose a scheme in Da 9:24-27 which would NOT bring us to 167 BC, maybe with some inaccuracy of let's say + - 10 years which is, I think, very generous. If totally off target, that interval between Cyrus' first year and Antiochus IV's last years, would make the book highly untrustable, and against what "Daniel" would want.
So if that interval was 490 years, that would push back the decree of Cyrus to around 657 BC, 118 years before 539 BC, the historical date. Since "Daniel" seemed very much aware of the history between Alexander the Great and Antichus IV, likely including the relative dating, that would leave a lot of years for many Persian kings after Darius I.
Furthermore, I think that Jews would know when their dear 2nd temple was built. Something so important would have been recorded and passed from generation to generation. More so when between the rebuilding of the temple and the times of Antiochus IV, the situation in Israel was rather stable, with a whole succession of high priests.

Yes, I said Ben Sira knew about Nehemiah. Josephus did too, just not the canonical book. He evinces something called the Nehemiah Memoir.

Well, 'Nehemiah' starts as such: "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,
That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem."
That's certainly looks like a Memoir written by Nehemiah himself. I don't have any problem with Ben Sira calling 'Nehemiah' Memoir of Nehemiah.

That Daniel wrongly calls Belshazzar a king? Oh, I see. You have to downplay the blunder, because you are trying to sell the story that Daniel's seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. Hence..

It is not so wrong to have "Daniel" to call Belshazzar a king:
A reminder: From the The verse account of Nabonidus http://www.livius.org/sources/content/a ... bonidus/?:
"when the third year was about to begin- he [Nabonidus] entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him."
According to that, "Belshazzar" was 99% king. So the error is 1%.

Did the Nehemiah Memoir mention Artaxerxes? Josephus, who uses it (not the canonical text), puts Nehemiah in the reign of a Xerxes (11.159).

I do not think Josephus said he got his info on Nehemiah from any memoir. And 'Nehemiah' and 2 Esdra have Nehemiah operating under Artarxerxes. Josephus seems to be in the minority here.

I've already said a number of times that the text becomes more accurate the closer it comes to the time period under consideration.

Actually, the text becomes very accurate and detailed as soon as Alexander the Great is implied (at Dan 11:3) despite the fact that history is presented as a prophecy. And that's way beyond the life span of the author of Daniel part 2. I explained that at http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html.

you can't just assert it

I can assert it because these seventy sevens brings me to the right year.

They just count the three letters שבע, so you do fancy them writing all this down like your spreadsheet, but instead of numerals, they wrote letters, so what, you imagine that they wrote out a table like yours with words instead of numbers?? It wouldn't fit on the widest scroll from the DSS. Perhaps they wrote it out as a (single column) list, maybe? No? Perhaps someone counted the numbers out aloud and another marked each seven... that wouldn't work, would it? They are pronounced differently, having different vowels. You can't imagine why your theory looks silly to some others.

OK, I already explained you do not have to use a spreadsheet. Just a patch of sand will do for a few annotations. It is not difficult to figure that out. There is nothing silly when a scheme brings you to the exact and correct year.
A lot of theories, even if at the start they look silly for some, can prove to be right when they bring correct & verifiable results. And that's exactly what I achieved. That's the scientific way.

Bernard Muller wrote:

When it is reached, I look at the corresponding number of years (in that case 372), and I subtract it from the year of Cyrus' decree and I get 167 BC.

In this situation no-one is interested in what you did. It is what they did that matters and you don't know. You assert a wacky approach that you claim they must have used because, well, they were ultra-accurate.

Why would no-one be interested with success? Except if one holds on to some theory with more than a century error.

Not relevant here: it doesn't concern a vision. Words have a life to be discerned within the vision, not without.

I do not see your point here.

But if you want to claim a real week, then you only have sixty-nine sevens mentioned in the vision, plus a week. Where is the seventieth? Do you really want to try to have it both ways??

No, because the seventieth is already reached at Daniel 9:26a "Now after the sixty-two weeks ..." So now we are in the seventieth weeks/sevens. And then we have within it "... an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction.
He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt." (Daniel 9:26-27 NET Bible)
One more week for you (= seven years) would be after your seventy weeks of years.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ..." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
It is very clear.

No it is not. The word for "midst" in Hebrew principally means "half": press the number above the word "middle" here and scroll down to the BDB Hebrew entry. the Tamid ceased half a week and stayed ceased "until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator." Working from 168/7 when the burnt offering was stopped until Antiochus received his end, we have, umm, well, let's see, gosh, could it be?, ahh, three and a half years.

Yes, but in some cases it indicates "midst" or "middle" or "part", as in Ex 27:5, 2 Sa 10:4, Psa 102:24, Isa 44:16,19, Jer 17:11, Zec 14:8.
Could not find the BDB entry, but looking at the different translations on Bible Hub, I find you interpretation to be in a small minority. And the LXX has "in the midst of the week ..." ("in" is in the Greek).

The text says that it was a week. When was that week for the covenant with the many? Or had he made a covenant back in 171 BCE when he appointed Menelaus because of a better offer?

The textual context says that is Antiochus IV confirming the covenant.

Well, you have got thirty-seven of them, haven't you?

No I have seventy of "sevens", that is all occurrences of שבע (seven).

You are in no position to make any claim about what the text says or does not say, only what the translator says it might have said. On what grounds do you say what is not the text?

"For" (as in "... for half a week ...) is not in the Hebrew text, nor in the Greek of the LXX. The JPS translation is in a small minority.

In looking at 9:27 I noticed this:

He will make a binding covenant with many for one week,
and for half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings.(ISV)

Do you see how the duration in the first clause is at the end and in the second at the beginning? This is a similar structure to the one seen in 9:25. It shows you that the christianizing approach of separating the second duration from the following doesn't reflect Hebrew discourse. (The difference that the second duration is part of the first doesn't change the discourse structure.)

I repeat, there is no "for" in the Hebrew or the Greek.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

Zec 4:9: "The hands of Zerub'babel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you."

Still beating yourself because you can't get Zerubbabel into Zech 6.

Still nothing. As you can't put Zerubbabel into the discourse of Zech 6, you don't get anywhere. There is a scholarly body of work that deals with the disappearance of Zerubbabel. You're trying to reinvent the wheel because of your prior commitments. Enjoy.

When Zechariah wrote his book, Zerubbabel was still alive because Zechariah predicted that Zerubbabel would complete the temple. So No Zerubbabel in Zech 6 is irrelevant. He had to be in Jerusalem when Jeshua (allegedly) received the crowns. Period.

Period, indeed. You are still pretending to try to do history with the material. Zechariah scrubbed Zerubbabel from the scene, leaving only Yeshua being crowned with two crowns. Don't you understand this? Zechariah leaves the Jewish tradition with the notion of Yeshua as ruler.

I guess there were only four kings in the Persian empire

Ok, I do not think that "Daniel" would propose a scheme in Da 9:24-27 which would NOT bring us to 167 BC, maybe with some inaccuracy of let's say + - 10 years which is, I think, very generous. If totally off target, that interval between Cyrus' first year and Antiochus IV's last years, would make the book highly untrustable, and against what "Daniel" would want.
So if that interval was 490 years, that would push back the decree of Cyrus to around 657 BC, 118 years before 539 BC, the historical date. Since "Daniel" seemed very much aware of the history between Alexander the Great and Antichus IV, likely including the relative dating, that would leave a lot of years for many Persian kings after Darius I.

Again, you are trying to do history, when the text doesn't allow you to do so, except in the period preceding the writing. You are not going to get accuracy until then, so arguing about accuracy is a waste of time. The text is inaccurate frequently enough to prevent you from treating it as "ultra-accurate".

Furthermore, I think that Jews would know when their dear 2nd temple was built.

Knew more than vaguely??

Something so important would have been recorded and passed from generation to generation.

That doesn't derive from anything from the past. You are just making an assertion.

More so when between the rebuilding of the temple and the times of Antiochus IV, the situation in Israel was rather stable, with a whole succession of high priests.

You haven't read F.M. Cross's analysis of the priestly list in the post-"exilic" period and he points out the list should be quite a bit longer, so you are speaking without any data to support you again. I once did an analysis of the evolution of the high priestly genealogy from Aaron to Seraiah and found that it got larger for the same time period as time progressed. It ain't accurate and it is probably partially made up. The relative chronology from my analysis of the evolution of the high priestly list goes:

1. 1 Esdras 8:1-2
2. Ezra 7:1-5
3. 2 Esdras 1:1-2
4. 1 Chr 6:3-15.

Watch the list grow. It's semi-fictional. Josephus offers a section of the list in AJ 10.152-153. It's also longer than the related section in 1 Chr 6:9-15.

But no, the situation in Israel was not rather stable, with an evolving tradition of high priests.

Noteworthy in passing is the fact that the traditions imply that Ezra was the uncle of Yeshua, given that Ezra is the son of Seraiah son of Azariah (Ezra 7:1). Yehozedek is also son of Azariah (1 Chr 6:14) and Yehozedek was father of Yeshua.

Yes, I said Ben Sira knew about Nehemiah. Josephus did too, just not the canonical book. He evinces something called the Nehemiah Memoir.

Well, 'Nehemiah' starts as such: "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,
That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem."
That's certainly looks like a Memoir written by Nehemiah himself. I don't have any problem with Ben Sira calling 'Nehemiah' Memoir of Nehemiah.

Just read up about the evolution of the book of Nehemiah.

That Daniel wrongly calls Belshazzar a king? Oh, I see. You have to downplay the blunder, because you are trying to sell the story that Daniel's seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. Hence..

It is not so wrong to have "Daniel" to call Belshazzar a king:
A reminder: From the The verse account of Nabonidus http://www.livius.org/sources/content/a ... bonidus/?:
"when the third year was about to begin- he [Nabonidus] entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him."
According to that, "Belshazzar" was 99% king. So the error is 1%.

Stop bullshitting, Bernard. You know he was never king. The writers of Daniel part 2 didn't get it as historical information. They got it from Dan 5:1-2, where he is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Great historical source.

Did the Nehemiah Memoir mention Artaxerxes? Josephus, who uses it (not the canonical text), puts Nehemiah in the reign of a Xerxes (11.159).

I do not think Josephus said he got his info on Nehemiah from any memoir.

I'm glad you can say that with a straight face.

And 'Nehemiah' and 2 Esdra have Nehemiah operating under Artarxerxes. Josephus seems to be in the minority here.

We have no idea whether Daniel knew either Nehemiah or the Vorlage to 1 Esdras. We don't know when 1 Esdras was written, but probably around the time of Ben Sira or later. It cannot be shown to be relevant in any sense here. You have better hope for Nehemiah, but you cannot know whether the text originally mentioned Artaxerxes or not. Josephus doesn't allow you to assume it.

I've already said a number of times that the text becomes more accurate the closer it comes to the time period under consideration.

Actually, the text becomes very accurate and detailed as soon as Alexander the Great is implied (at Dan 11:3) despite the fact that history is presented as a prophecy. And that's way beyond the life span of the author of Daniel part 2. I explained that at http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html.

You said nothing here that I hadn't already said other than "actually". In my last post I dealt with this accuracy issue at some length. All you are doing here is ignoring the blunder of the four kings and looking to the later material which we both know is more accurate, and even more accurate in its concentration of data approaching the time of writing.

you can't just assert it

I can assert it because these seventy sevens brings me to the right year.

Errors can get you places. Doesn't justify the error. You just thank your luck. Besides, the fact that your trick got you in the ballpark doesn't mean that it is what Dan 9:25-27 was dealing with. That's just another assumption. The reason you are trying so hard to insinuate Zerubbabel into Zechariah 6 is because Yeshua is such a good candidate for the prince the anointed.

They just count the three letters שבע, so you do fancy them writing all this down like your spreadsheet, but instead of numerals, they wrote letters, so what, you imagine that they wrote out a table like yours with words instead of numbers?? It wouldn't fit on the widest scroll from the DSS. Perhaps they wrote it out as a (single column) list, maybe? No? Perhaps someone counted the numbers out aloud and another marked each seven... that wouldn't work, would it? They are pronounced differently, having different vowels. You can't imagine why your theory looks silly to some others.

OK, I already explained you do not have to use a spreadsheet. Just a patch of sand will do for a few annotations. It is not difficult to figure that out. There is nothing silly when a scheme brings you to the exact and correct year.
A lot of theories, even if at the start they look silly for some, can prove to be right when they bring correct & verifiable results. And that's exactly what I achieved. That's the scientific way.

You were caught out with the numerals and stuck with words. Now you've changed your discourse to "a few annotations." There is nothing scientific in your approach.

When it is reached, I look at the corresponding number of years (in that case 372), and I subtract it from the year of Cyrus' decree and I get 167 BC.

In this situation no-one is interested in what you did. It is what they did that matters and you don't know. You assert a wacky approach that you claim they must have used because, well, they were ultra-accurate.

Why would no-one be interested with success? Except if one holds on to some theory with more than a century error.

There is no success here. You got a starting date then jimmied a change in duration from the 490 years that one would usually understand from Dan 9:25-27 so as not to overshoot and then you reinterpreted 9:25-27 to reflect the date you acquired from your number game. No sign of success, sorry.

I do not think "Daniel" was consistent with his week(s): שבעים שבע . In 10:2 & 3, he used the form שבעים for the plural of weeks (with weeks really meaning weeks).

Not relevant here: it doesn't concern a vision. Words have a life to be discerned within the vision, not without.

I do not see your point here.

You are introducing a significance of a word outside vision related text. It's usage there has no necessary impact on usage within vision related material.

But if you want to claim a real week, then you only have sixty-nine sevens mentioned in the vision, plus a week. Where is the seventieth? Do you really want to try to have it both ways??

No, because the seventieth is already reached at Daniel 9:26a "Now after the sixty-two weeks ..." So now we are in the seventieth weeks/sevens.

No, we are in the seventieth week in 9:27a. That's when the writers state the 70th week. There are seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks in 9:25, then the sixty-two weeks is referred to in 9:26. Where is the seventieth week referred to? 9:27 "He shall make a strong covenant with many (for) a week."

And then we have within it "... an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction.//

Wait for it... the seventieth week,wait... here it is:

//He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt." (Daniel 9:26-27 NET Bible)

You didn't look at the Hebrew references I gave you a link for. You are dependent on the English translation with "midst" and it is leading you astray. Half a week sacrifices will cease. The Greek: εν τω ημισει της εβδομαδος, "in/through half the week". ημισος gives us the prefix "hemi-", as in "hemisphere".

One more week for you (= seven years) would be after your seventy weeks of years.

Hmm, seventy-one weeks! That does not fit Daniel's schema... remembering that the topic was only seventy weeks! It's a straw man, Bernard.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ..." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
It is very clear.

No it is not. The word for "midst" in Hebrew principally means "half": press the number above the word "middle" here and scroll down to the BDB Hebrew entry. the Tamid ceased half a week and stayed ceased "until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator." Working from 168/7 when the burnt offering was stopped until Antiochus received his end, we have, umm, well, let's see, gosh, could it be?, ahh, three and a half years.

Yes, but in some cases it indicates "midst" or "middle" or "part", as in Ex 27:5 [with a preposition], 2 Sa 10:4 [half], Psa 102:24 [not present], Isa 44:16,19 [half, half], Jer 17:11 [with a preposition], Zec 14:8 [half, half].

Sadly none of these help your cause. Some indicate half and are often translated as such. Two others are with prepositions that require the translator to improvise, but note that there is no preposition in Dan 9:27 before חצי.

Could not find the BDB entry, but looking at the different translations on Bible Hub, I find you interpretation to be in a small minority. And the LXX has "in the midst of the week ..." ("in" is in the Greek).

No, it does not. See above. Your old translation of the Greek tends to lean towards mimicking the KJV.

The text says that it was a week. When was that week for the covenant with the many? Or had he made a covenant back in 171 BCE when he appointed Menelaus because of a better offer?

The textual context says that is Antiochus IV confirming the covenant.

The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.

Well, you have got thirty-seven of them, haven't you?

No I have seventy of "sevens", that is all occurrences of שבע (seven).

You have thirty-three seventies and thirty-seven sevens. That's not seventy sevens. You are still enamored with Roman numerals and you are just manipulating the material and pretending it's ok.

You are in no position to make any claim about what the text says or does not say, only what the translator says it might have said. On what grounds do you say what is not the text?

"For" (as in "... for half a week ...) is not in the Hebrew text, nor in the Greek of the LXX.

It is not in the Hebrew of "(for) a time, times and half a time" or "(for) 2300 evenings and mornings". They didn't do durations the same way as English.

The JPS translation is in a small minority.

It is representing the Hebrew better. Duration, as I have said, in Hebrew is indicated without preposition. We need one in English. You are arguing here form ignorance. Almost every time you depend on a translated word for your argument it is wrong.

In looking at 9:27 I noticed this:

He will make a binding covenant with many for one week,
and for half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings.(ISV)

Do you see how the duration in the first clause is at the end and in the second at the beginning? This is a similar structure to the one seen in 9:25. It shows you that the christianizing approach of separating the second duration from the following doesn't reflect Hebrew discourse. (The difference that the second duration is part of the first doesn't change the discourse structure.)

I repeat, there is no "for" in the Hebrew or the Greek.

And it is an utterly terrible argument, which you should remove from your playbook, because it just shows so well in such cases you don't know what you are talking about.

You must not make arguments based on languages you haven''t got a clue about. This is the case for most of your argument down to the seventy, umm, well 37 sevens and 33 seventies. But they are all sevens, you think with your modern understanding of numbers.

[Ulan]

My point really is banal. In order to make genuine progress in a discussion such as this one needs to be able to identify and re-state the other's primary argument and foundational assumptions. That's what's missing here.

Yup, that would be a road to success. It makes you acknowledge your opponent's position with the benefit that your opponent sees that you actually understood what he said. However, outside of counseling, I have hardly ever seen this practiced.

[Bernard Muller]

To spin,
Ok, even if Jeshua son of Josedek was crowned prince in Zec 6, that would be around 520 BC and only about 19 years after Cyrus' decree. But with your week of years, that would put that Jeshua becoming prince (BTW, not evidenced anywhere else: he is only a high priest) around 490 BC. An error of 30 years on 19 years: 158 %
Then the 69 weeks of year will bring you to 56 AD, more than a century after Antiochus IV's times. But wait, according to you and Dan 9:26, these 69 weeks would end before Onias III is removed from office. According to 2 Macc, that happens soon after Antiochus IV become king in 175 BC. So the error is at least 119 years on 483 years: 20%
Now, since you say we have to tag along another week of years to get to your seventy weeks of years, and that week would end when the Jewish sacrifices resume in the temple (in Dec. 163 BC), that week of years, instead of being 7 years, is in fact at least 12 years long (175 - 163). Error of 5 years on 7 years: 71%
And for this last time period, "Daniel" and most of his readers would have lived through these 12 years, and knew for sure there were not 7 years.

That's why your weeks of years is bunk, and your understanding that "Daniel" of part 2 was ignorant on the relative dating of Cyrus the Great and when the 2nd temple was built does not make any sense.

As for me, my understanding of the 69 and 70 "weeks" brings me exactly on Jason as the anointed ruler (which he was) and 167 BC, the year of the temple desecration and ensuing massacre of Jews. Error: 0% on both counts.

Cordially, Bernard

[iskander]

Daniel is nationalist book.

Of these works the most influential was the Book of Daniel, dating from early Hasmonean times, both because it found its way into the canon and because it became the prototype for many others. It uses historical examples, from Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian times, to whip up hatred against pagan imperialism in general, and Greek rule in particular, and it predicts the end of empire and the emergence of God’s kingdom, possibly under a heroic liberator, a Son of Man. The book vibrates with xenophobia and invitations to martyrdom.

A history of the Jews , Paul Johnson
pg 121

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Period, indeed. You are still pretending to try to do history with the material. Zechariah scrubbed Zerubbabel from the scene, leaving only Yeshua being crowned with two crowns. Don't you understand this? Zechariah leaves the Jewish tradition with the notion of Yeshua as ruler.

You are dead wrong. The fact that Zerubbabel is not mentioned in Zec 6 does not prove anything. I already demonstrated that when Zechariah wrote Ch. 1 to 7, Zerubbabel was alive and well in Jerusalem because he was expected to complete the temple.

But no, the situation in Israel was not rather stable, with an evolving tradition of high priests

Just different lists of high priests does not make the situation in Israel unstable during the 2nd temple era up to Antiochus IV. And there is no reason to think there was not an uninterrupted succession of high priests in Jerusalem. Further the info about dating the building of the second temple and when Cyrus' first year over Babylon could be transmitted by scribes to younger scribes. There is no way that kind of info, pertaining to the dear sacred temple, would be overlooked and not worth to be remembered & recorded.

You were caught out with the numerals and stuck with words. Now you've changed your discourse to "a few annotations." There is nothing scientific in your approach.

Nothing new. I already told on this thread of annotations on the sand. These annotations would be just to keep track of the tabulation of the "seven".

The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.

If that was the covenant, so how come it was proclaimed to many? Menelaus is not many.

It is representing the Hebrew better. Duration, as I have said, in Hebrew is indicated without preposition. We need one in English. You are arguing here form ignorance. Almost every time you depend on a translated word for your argument it is wrong.

Maybe, but the "for" in the translation can be replaced by "at" as in "and at half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings" (ISV except "at").

Cordially, Bernard