Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

[Ged]

... the Persian kings in Ezra shows that the king supposedly providing the 458 BCE starting date is the wrong king. The book of Ezra does not number the kings or supply them all, but the relative chronology of the kings provided shows that it is not Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7, but Artaxerxes II ... This last king ruled from 404 BCE to 358 BCE. Crash goes this piece of apologetics.

A small number of alternative historians make this claim, but without any good reason, except that they do not like the implication of a predictive prophecy counting down to the year of God's anointed. (26 AD)
Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7 fits the historical as well as the prophetic details. The second king by the same name is not a very credible option IMO.

[spin]

... the Persian kings in Ezra shows that the king supposedly providing the 458 BCE starting date is the wrong king. The book of Ezra does not number the kings or supply them all, but the relative chronology of the kings provided shows that it is not Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7, but Artaxerxes II ... This last king ruled from 404 BCE to 358 BCE. Crash goes this piece of apologetics.

A small number of alternative historians make this claim, but without any good reason, except that they do not like the implication of a predictive prophecy counting down to the year of God's anointed. (26 AD)
Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7 fits the historical as well as the prophetic details. The second king by the same name is not a very credible option IMO.

You can assert whatever you want. You didn't look at the evidence. Did you even open a book? It seems to me that you lack any knowledge of the issues and rely on others. Show that you can supply reasoning to support your assertions. Don't just rehearse your fumbings in public.

This is the evidence from Ezra compared with the Persian king list. Where is it wrong and what evidence makes you think so?

Persian kings	Ezra passage
Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II)	1:1-4:5
Cambyses II	-
Smerdis	-
Gaumata	-
Darius the Great (Darius I)	4:5
Xerxes the Great (Xerxes I)	4:6
Artaxerxes I	4:7-23
Xerxes II	-
Sogdianus	-
Darius II Nothus	4:24-6:15
Artaxerxes II Mnemon	7:1-

Knock yourself out.

[Ged]

This is the evidence from Ezra compared with the Persian king list. Where is it wrong and what evidence makes you think so?

Your evidence assumes that Ezra chapter 4 was written in strict chronological sequence. I don't believe it was. Chapter 4 is a parenthetical summary of the opposition to Jerusalem over 80 years and under the reigning monarchs during that entire period. Then, in chapter 5, it continues where it left off in the reign of Darius 1.

Persian kings	Ezra passage	Topic Order
Cyrus the Great	1:1-4:5	overarching topic
Cambyses	-
Smerdis	-
Gaumata	-
Darius the Great	4:1-5	topic changes to opposition
Xerxes the Great (Xerxes I)	4:6	parenthetical information
Artaxerxes I	4:7-23	parenthetical information
Darius the Great	4:24-6:22	topic resumes re.temple
Artaxerxes I	Ez 7 - Neh 11	chronology Artax.1 period
Darius II Nothus	Nehemiah 12:1-22	chronology Nothus period

[spin]

This is the evidence from Ezra compared with the Persian king list. Where is it wrong and what evidence makes you think so?

Your evidence assumes that Ezra chapter 4 was written in strict chronological sequence. I don't believe it was. Chapter 4 is a parenthetical summary of the opposition to Jerusalem over 80 years and under the reigning monarchs during that entire period.

Umm a summary looking forward!! That's novel. Here is the end of the reign of Cyrus onward in chapter 4:

Ezra 4:5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language. 8 Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king...

All these kings are in order, Cyrus, Darius I, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I with the few minor rulers not mentioned. All is clear. At the end of the letter of Artaxerxes I Ezra continues:

Ezra 4:23 As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

When the letter of Artaxerxes arrived, work by the Jews was forced to stop until the second year of the reign of Darius, so Artaxerxes preceded I a Darius, who can only be Darius II.

And just in case you missed that, there is a repeat of the royal acts toward the Jews in 5:14-15,

Ezra 5:14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15 The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

which provides the king names Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and another Darius, so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II before the Artaxerxes in 7:1. This is Artaxerxes II. During the reign of Artaxerxes I—according to his letter, see 4:21—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

Your mashup is an epic fail.

Then, in chapter 5, it continues where it left off in the reign of Darius 1.

Persian kings	Ezra passage	Topic Order
Cyrus the Great	1:1-4:5	overarching topic
Cambyses	-
Smerdis	-
Gaumata	-
Darius the Great	4:1-5	topic changes to opposition
Xerxes the Great (Xerxes I)	4:6	parenthetical information
Artaxerxes I	4:7-23	parenthetical information
Darius the Great	4:24-6:22	topic resumes re.temple
Artaxerxes I	Ez 7 - Neh 11	chronology Artax.1 period
Darius II Nothus	Nehemiah 12:1-22	chronology Nothus period

[Ged]

... this view glosses over a number of important points--- the "messiah " is only supposed to be cut off after the 62 weeks-- not necessarily in the middle as this view point asserts.

verse 26 says he will be cut off after the 62 weeks. It doesn't say how long after. However, verse 27 adds that it will be in the middle of the week. Jesus last words were, "it is finished". This referred to the end of the sacrificial system as far as God was concerned. Apart from the fact that he actually died in the middle of a 'week' (April AD30), this is why Christians interpret Daniels prophecy to mean the middle of the 70th week.

... Also, the temple was destroyed much later than the 70 weeks--- prophecy accuracy off a bit? ...

Not at all. The answer is really quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be.

Try reading it like this:
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And (after the 70 weeks are over) 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. (Dan 9:26 brackets mine)

.

[spin]

... this view glosses over a number of important points--- the "messiah " is only supposed to be cut off after the 62 weeks-- not necessarily in the middle as this view point asserts.

verse 26 says he will be cut off after the 62 weeks. It doesn't say how long after. However, verse 27 adds that it will be in the middle of the week. Jesus last words were, "it is finished". This referred to the end of the sacrificial system as far as God was concerned. Apart from the fact that he actually died in the middle of a 'week' (April AD30), this is why Christians interpret Daniels prophecy to mean the middle of the 70th week.

... Also, the temple was destroyed much later than the 70 weeks--- prophecy accuracy off a bit? ...

Not at all. The answer is really quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be.

Try reading it like this:
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And (after the 70 weeks are over) 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. (Dan 9:26 brackets mine)

.

So despite the epic fail regarding Ezra, you're still going to try to peddle the christian apologetic perversion of the 70 week prophecy in Daniel.

I suppose you too will try to sell the ridiculous addition of the seven weeks and the 62 weeks in order to have the anointed prince not after the seven weeks, but after 69 weeks. Standard apologetics. No history here, just manipulate, manipulate.

This is just so old hat, you'd hope that people would stop coming along and presenting it as somehow meaningful.

---

Have you taken the time to look at any scholarly commentaries on Daniel?

[Tenorikuma]

Anyone tying to tie in Daniel with Ezra should be looking at 1 Esdras instead. Hebrew Ezra didn't exist yet when Daniel was written.

[semiopen]

Anyone tying to tie in Daniel with Ezra should be looking at 1 Esdras instead. Hebrew Ezra didn't exist yet when Daniel was written.

I've refrained commenting on Daniel because I don't know it that well but this is surprising.

Book_of_Ezra

The theological program of the book explains the many problems its chronological structure presents.[3] It probably appeared in its earliest version around 400 BC, and continued to be revised and edited for several centuries after before being accepted as scriptural around the time of Christ.[4]

This seems sort of reasonable.

1_Esdras

Josephus makes use of the book and some scholars believe that the composition is likely to have taken place in the first century BC or the first century AD.

I thought everyone "knew" that Daniel was written at a late date, and have been surprised to see some people actually saying that it was written in Persian times.

Book_of_Daniel

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.[30]

Maybe Tenorisan could have inserted his dates in parentheses, I just don't understand this post.

[Kris]

Jed-- you are using apologetics with trying to tie Jesus to then stoppage of sacrifices when he died. His proclamation of "It is finished" could have meant a lot of things- but not necessarily about sacrifices.

Ironically, sacrifices went on another 40 years or so, and even Paul was required offer sacrifices per the book of Acts-- so you are flat out wrong on this.

Twist all you want on this-- Daniel is a failed prophecy meant for people living in 160's bc. Those living after who read this book tried to reinterpet it, just so they wouldn't have to admit it was wrong, and that is why we are writing about this ridiculous book today. The book of Daniel also said to roll it up until the end-- and since this scroll (or book) came out in all of it's glory around 165bc or so, that was an assertation that the end was nigh at that time. And here we are 2000 years later. So tired of christian apologetics.

[Ged]

Jed-- you are using apologetics with trying to tie Jesus to then stoppage of sacrifices when he died. His proclamation of "It is finished" could have meant a lot of things- but not necessarily about sacrifices.

The entire theme of Daniel 9 is to do with atoning sacrifice. And the entire ministry of Jesus was to do with atoning sacrifice. And the entire book of Hebrews was written to explain how Jesus' sacrifice superseded animal sacrifice and put an end to it. As for his cry, "It is finished!" it was immediately followed by the tearing of the temple curtain signifying the end of sacrifice.

Ironically, sacrifices went on another 40 years or so,

Im glad you mentioned this because Daniel prophesied this as well. Older translations of Daniel 9:27 speak of an ‘overspreading abomination’ referring to ongoing sacrifice, spreading as it did over a span of forty years after the weeks had ended. So yes, it is ironical that the former method of atonement (perpetuated after it was meant to cease) had actually become unacceptable to God.

This was the understanding of other early writers too. An early Church statement says:
"For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed." (Clement)