Why 30's ad?

[Kris]

Hi John T.

I really like what you had to say-- and this is exactly what I am looking for-- some logical reason that this particular timeframe was ripe for messiahs to crop up. Do you know any more about specific dating of the 10th Jubilee, or is it ambiguous--just around the 1st century?

I have read in a few places that the Essenes-- or at least the sect at Qumran expected the messiah to appear sometime around 26ad. Is anyone familar with this? I have seen other writings where the date is closer to 4bc to 2ad. The 26ad-- if I can verify this, would lend credence to certain jewish sects using Daniel as a source to identify when they thought the messiah would appear-- probably along with these other "signs" such as the one John mentioned, and even the 77 generation prophecy from Enoch-- which you can see traces of in the NT geneology.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Bernard Muller wrote:

to spin,

Dan 9:26 doesn't talk of "the prince" but "the troops [literally, people] of the prince". These are the Cypriot troops installed for Menelaus.

And what would be the reference for these Cypriot troops in Jerusalem, prior to Antiochus' second foray? Certainly not in 1 or 2 Maccabees. And, as usual, you do not reveal your sources.

You might read sources before you discount them. In fact 2 Macc 4:29 specifically indicates the presence of Cypriot troops in Jerusalem at the time of Menelaus and the Seleucid commander Sostrates is mentioned leaving Jerusalem in the hands of the Cypriots' leader, Crates. (It's safer to ask for specific sources before discounting them.)

I read 2 Macc 4:29 and it says: "Now Menelans left his brother Lysimachus in his stead in the priesthood; and Sostratus left Crates, who was governor of the Cyprians."
That's it about these Cyprians. They are never said to "destroy the city and the sanctuary" as stated in Da 9:26. That was done (with exaggeration) by Antiochus' people when he got in Jerusalem in 167 BC. There is no evidence these Cyprians went on a rampage before that.
You are imagining history to fit your flawed theory: you need soldiers to become destroyers from the time of Onias III's death (171 BC) and you have nothing better to show for evidence than the existence of a Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem then. And all that non-sense in order for your last "week" to start right after the preceding one, with no gap of several years (4 to be exact) in between.
Of course, I have no problem such as yours with Jason.
I have to thank you for pointing me to a strong argument against the alleged prophecy involving Onias III and "week" in Da 9:26 (starting when Antiochus IV was in Jerusalem according to Da 9:26-27a:
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people 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.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; ..." RSV --word in italics not in the Hebrew text).

We are playing around with silence here. The fact we know was that there was a Seleucid military presence in Jerusalem from the time of Menelaus. Such a presence is never a good sign for public safety.

But that does not mean they went about destroying the city and temple. That fact is unevidenced, despite 2 Maccabees covered that period in details.

So any language you haven't seen before that appears in a text you read must be invented by the writer! What utter absurdity.

So, who invented before "Daniel" the peculiar plural for "week" or "seven". Evidence please.

One thing is certain. You have to be totally off your face to believe that a writer with the facilities of a scribe of the second century BCE could have constructed the sort of table in words that your flight of fancy presupposes. Can you tell me how many characters on average each line of your table presupposes and what the widest character line from Qumran is??? You just have no idea how ludicrous this fudge of yours really is. Do you have one reasonable parallel to the sort of construction you present in Arabic numbers??

Who is talking about Arabic number? Let's keep it at a Hebrew numeral written as שבע in a number, once or twice as in מאתיים ושבעים ושבעה (two hundred and seventy-seven).
A simple way to figure out the scheme is that the first "seven" is after 7 years after Cyrus' decree. After that, "seven", as the lower digit, appears every ten years (17, 27, 37 ... 357, 367, 377) . However also the "seven" in the second digit are to be counted in years from 70 to 79 (10 of them), 170 to 179 (ditto), 270 to 279 (ditto), 370 to 379 (ditto), etc.
Then we add up, 1 at 7 years, then 7 + 10 at 79, then 10 + 10 at 179, then 10 + 10 at 279, then 10 + 10 at 379, etc.
And for 372 we have 1 + 17 + 20 +20 + 2 = 70. And 372 years is 539 (Cyrus' first year) - 167 (Antiochus IV second foray in Jerusalem and massacres of Jews).
No need for a huge table on a manuscript. Just some annotations in the sand will do.

So you want seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks plus one unstated week, plus one stated week that is not the same as all the other weeks.

My so-called unstated "week/seven" is implied by "after the sixty-two "weeks/sevens" ..." Da 9:26.
BTW, your "week" in Da 9:27 is not stated as the one of the seventy "weeks/sevens". And then there is nothing to say that "week" is actually 7 years. And I doubt the author meant to say that Antiochus, when in Jerusalem for the 2nd time, confirmed (or strengthened) the new covenant for 7 years. (the temple was restored well before that, with Judah liberated, minus a few garrisons).

Bernard Muller wrote:

Why is that one week not the last of the seventy?
Your "week" starts when Antiochus is in Jerusalem (167 BC): " ... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

No, it does not. It starts with the installation of Menelaus along with Seleucid troops, circa 171.,

I opposed that already that. That's totally unevidenced, despite 2 Maccabees covering these years.The so-called unstated "week/seven" is implied by "after the sixty-two "weeks/sevens" ..." Da 9:26.
You are inventing history with these Cyprians ravaging Jerusalem right after Onias III's killing.

Half way through the week, 3½ years after 171, sacrifice is stopped. 3½ years later is the expected end.

171 is unacceptable as the starting point (explained already). 167 is correct and that would put that scheme faulty.

I have little problem with the notion that the word שבוע could be used to talk of a group of seven years.

I know you do. But you should acknowledge a big problem, as I explained to you already. And "little problem" does not mean it is right.

Out of the 121 times חצי is used in the Hebrew bible, how many times can you find it used in the English translation to mean "in the midst of"? From my search there were three in the AV.

With my "week" meaning week, I can accept "in the middle".

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Here's the bit you haven't got yet. Things are done differently in Hebrew. That an English equivalent doesn't exist in Hebrew doesn't mean that the same basic idea of duration. However a locative preposition (ב־ B-) does exist, such as in the first verse of Genesis B-Re$YT, "at the beginning". Look at Ps 102:24 (& Jer 17:11) "in the midst of my days", ב־חצי ימי, the word for midst clearly has that preposition. There is no preposition in Dan 9:27, so you end up with the duration, "half the week".

What you say is absolutely true.
However the Septuagint, as translated by Brenton from the Codex Vaticanus has "in" (ἐν), as also the version used by the Church of Greece. Both versions might come from Theodotion's translation (150 AD) (Theodotion was a Jew). The vulgate has also "in" ('in').
These Septuagints and the vulgate came much earlier than the Masoretic text, as primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.
It would be interesting to look at all the known versions in different languages, such as Greek and Syriac.
I suspect a particular Hebrew letter got dropped in the Masoretic Hebrew version because, by doing it, it had "Daniel" predicting very closely in 9:27 when the restoration came (accepting "week" meant 7 years).
Also the Septuagint and vulgate has "and" between "sixty-two weeks" and "shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall,"
I am quite sure you have a lot to say about that.

So the 1150 days were written after the restoration but the 1239 days (3½ years) was written before. Yeah, sure, Bernard. The other leg plays Jingle Bells.

The 1290 days in Da 12:11 refer to when the sacrifices were interrupted again after the restoration. The 1335 days of Da 12:13 refer when the Jewish sacrifices resumed, that is 45 days after the aforementioned interruption:
Josephus and 1 Maccabees alluded to that:
This kind of events are alluded to in Josephus' Ant., XII, IX, 3a. "At that time [163 B.C.E.] it was that the garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, with the Jewish runagates, did a great deal of harm to the Jews: for the soldiers that were in that garrison rushed out upon the sudden, and destroyed such as were going to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices, for this citadel adjoined to and overlooked the temple. When these misfortunes had often happened to them, ..."
and 1Maccabees: 1:33-36 "Then they built up the City of David with a high, massive wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. There they installed a sinful race, perverse men, who fortified themselves inside it, storing up weapons and provisions, and depositing there the plunder they had collected from Jerusalem. And they became a great threat. The citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, and a wicked adversary to Israel at all times."

Why the updates? From my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html
The following "updating" was meant to have the fictional prophet Daniel (or rather his friendly demigod!) predict any event affecting the temple as long as Antiochus IV was alive (and still able to fulfill the prophecies of 11:40-45). Antiochus' death happened in 164. Since the desecration of the temple is described as an "abomination and desolation" of ultimate importance, any reconsecration and further disturbance could not have gone "unpredicted". And of course this demigod had been so accurate in his prophecies from the first year of Cyrus all the way to 167 that he could not have "missed" events beyond that!

I think it is dumb to think that 1150 days were predicted right after the battle of Emmaus, when the near restoration could be anticipated, then the author later refined his prediction with 1290 days, then finally indicated 1335 days after the restoration (or kept guessing).
If the restoration was anticipated in the next future after the battle of Emmaus, then the author would have waited for it to happen and then "update" his alleged prophecy once and for all with the exact number of days.

Dan 9 as I understand it was written before the rededication and the discussion of Emmaus made it clear that I understood Dan 9 to have been written before

That was my understanding. But I don't see why my past statement "As for the battle of Emmaus, there is no mention, not even a hint about it in the whole book of Daniel." conflicts with that understanding.

Read Dan 7 a little more closely. The attempt to change the times and the law (v25) was an attack on the temple, ie when sacrifices were to be made and the laws governing them. That lasted a time, times, and half a time (dividing of time), usually taken to indicate 3½ years, similar to the half week in 9:27. The disruption of times lasted until they were set right. That was done with the restoration of the temple.

Da 7:25 RSV He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.
No there is no clear allusion to the restoration of the temple there. And "a time, two times, and half a time" is not 3 and a 1/2 years, even if it was interpreted as such later.
Furthermore, I think Da 7 was written (in Aramaic, not Hebrew) between the two forays by Antiochus in Jerusalem.
On this, I agree with Collins:
John J. Collins Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) p. 38.
"The Hebrew–Aramaic text of Daniel evolved through several stages:
1. The individual tales of Chaps. 2–6 were originally separate ...
2. There was probably an initial collection of 3:31–6:29, which allowed the development of two textual traditions in these chapters.
3. The Aramaic tales were collected, with the introductory chap.1, in the Hellenistic period.
4. Daniel 7 was composed in Aramaic early in the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, before the desecration of the temple. Chapters 1–7 may have circulated briefly as an Aramaic book.
5. Between 167 and 164 B.C.E. the Hebrew chapters 8–12 were added, and chap.1 was translated to provide a Hebrew frame for the Aramaic chapters. ..." (bolding mine)

I never claimed that the writer talked about Emmaus. I wish you would stop making irrelevant claims.

Where did I say you claimed that? I wrote instead "You claim I missed the mark by two years because you insist most of Daniel was written right after the battle of Emmaus (based on Da 8:14 discussed earlier). There is simply no evidence that battle is hinted in 'Daniel'. But there is evidence that 8:13-14 was written after the restoration (as explained earlier)."

You seem to be so confused would you like someone to hold your hand? In 1 Chr 3:4 there are two clauses separated by two lengths of time:

1 Chr 3:4 Dan 9:25
ו׃ימלך־שם
and he reigned there (Chr)
מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד־משיח נגיד
from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince (Da)
שבע שנים ו׃ששה חדשים
seven years and six months (Chr)
שבעים שבעה
seven weeks (Da)
ו׃שלשים ו׃שלוש שנה
and thirty-three years (Chr)
ושבעים ששים ושנים
and sixty-two weeks (Da)
מלך ב׃ירושלם
he reigned in Jerusalem (Chr)
תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ
it was restored and rebuilt street and trench (Da)

The two are strictly analogous in structure. The first clause ends with a duration and the second starts with one. In each case that second duration has a waw before it to link the clause to what came before.

The peculiar structure in 1 Chr 3:4 is caused by the second clause having a reverse order for the duration than the first one. The normal order would be to put the duration at the end of the clause but it is reverse in the second clause.
In Chr 3:4, we have a symmetry: subject , action, location A, duration A, then, duration B, subject , action, location B
That's not the construct in 'Daniel'.
I told you already that "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" in only here to identify "the word".
That does not call for a time duration on how long it would take Jerusalem to be rebuilt or how long Jerusalem will remain rebuilt.
Anyway, your 62 weeks does not work for both options.

The text says nothing about Jason

Maybe, but the 69 sevens leads me exactly when Jason return to Jerusalem and the next seven leads me exactly when Jason is cut off. And what does the text says about Jeshua and Onias III? Nothing. About the battle of Emmaus? nothing. But you are anchoring your theories on these three items.
And never mind what Jason did. He still was a legitimate anointed prince. "Anointed" refers of him being high priest. It is not a statement of admiration.

Why don't you invite a scholar to critique your theory of sevens? That would be fun.

I would love to. How do you think I should proceed?

Cordially, Bernard

[John T]

Kris,

Sorry, but I don't know the exact year of the 10th Jubille for the Essenes.

The DSS has at least 6 listed in (4Q319-20) but I don't know how to translate it to a modern calender. Still, there is enough people and places mentioned in the scroll to come up with an approximate date but I currently don't have the time to research it.

However, I did start a new topic called: The Essenes and the 10th Jubilee.
When I get back in a few days I will see if it got any results.

Respectfully,

John T

[rakovsky]

Ok, this is an offshoot of my attempting to understand Daniel better. The information I am looking for has to do with why the Jesus story developed in the 30's ad? Could it have been due to different sects looking through what they thought to be prophecies of the messiah and then trying to find timelines that could give them dates?

One example would be Daniel. Most people know that this addresses Antiochus' time. However, not all the prophecies came true, and the world didn't end-- the messiah didn't come (at least according to the Jews) and life went on. So, the writings had to be reinterpeted-- and now, different start dates calculated. If we go with Artaxerxes decree, we can "move the goalposts" as spin would say. Using either of his decrees, you end up in anywhere from the 20-40ad arena. Could this be how Jesus supposed death fits this secondary timeline?

That's my best guess, they did the calculation and it came to around then.

Perhaps even Jesus was a follower of this messianic expectation-- and if he was a real man during this time, tried to get himself offed when he thought he would most likely meet the prophecy timeline?.

Great question.
He did see Dan 9 as applying to his era when he talked about the Abomination of Desolation.
I am curious what his motives were but the NT makes it look like he was expecting to get offed.

[rakovsky]

Do we have any evidence to inform us that among the Judeans of that day there was ever any interest in predicting a time for a messiah to arrive?

Yes, Suetonius and Josephus both wrote that about Jews' expectations for the 1st c. Ad.