Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

This is utterly left-field and speculative - just another possible perspective to consider...

a) Could Simon Magus be the self-professed "Samaritan Taheb/Messiah" referenced by Josephus in Antiquities 18:4*, wherein the slaughter of the unnamed Samaritan's followers are seen as the proximate cause of Pontius Pilate's removal as Prefect?

b) Could this circa-35AD temporal context have become an entrenched early (gnostic) 'Christian' axiom by the time the proto-orthodox had a chance to rewrite the narrative to their liking (decades later)?

------------
*1. But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews....

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/compl ... ix.iv.html

Bernard Muller wrote:Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem has nothing to do about rebuilding Jerusalem "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'." (Da 9:25).

Immediate confessional analysis alarm bells are sounding!!! Ding-ding-ding, confessional nonsense!!!

One then stops and says, but wait a minute, it's Bernard. WTF!?

When someone cuts up Dan 9:25, we know first that they can't be serious and second that they must be using a confessional translation. Let me supply the NJPS version:

• From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed ruler is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress.

Note that the seven weeks belongs with the first part of the verse, while the sixty-two weeks belongs to the second part. The NRSV is quite similar in its translation and that's the way the verse is understood in scholarly circles, as a quick look at a scholarly commentary will reveal.

The one called the "anointed ruler" or "anointed prince" arrives after seven weeks.

Bernard Muller wrote:That cannot be used by anyone as the start of the timeline for the 490 years. From my webpage (http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html):
Artaxerxes I (458) (Ezra 7:11-28):

And I need to point out here as I have elsewhere in the forum that the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is not the first but the second such ruler. Ezra 4:5-7 supplies a relative chronology: Cyrus, Darius I, Ahasuerus (ie Xerxes I), Artaxerxes I. Artaxerxes I is followed by Darius II (4:23-24). Darius is followed by Artaxerxes II (7:1). There is a recap during the reign of Darius II (6:13-15) that indicates that there were building decrees in the reigns of Cyrus, Darius I & Artaxerxes I. The narrative returns to the reign of Darius II, who is followed by Artaxerxes II, in whose reign Ezra is represented as returning.

Whatever the case, we know that the Ezra material is sus. Ezra we are told in 7:1 was the son of Seraiah. This latter is also father of Yehozedek, father of Yeshua the high priest at the time of the first Jews leaving Babylon for Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. This makes Ezra the uncle of Yeshua. And Yeshua's "return" can only have been completed in the time of Darius I, before the second half of the second year according to Haggai 1:1 and Zechariah 1:1, ie 520 BCE. While Ezra is the generation before that of Yeshua, can anyone really see this Ezra being around in the reign of any Artaxerxes? As I said, the Ezra material is sus.

Pardon the interruption. Please continue as before.

Bernard Muller wrote:This "letter" to Ezra only does not decree any reconstruction, but freedom for Israelites to go to Jerusalem, Jewish animal sacrifices, gifts for the temple & its people and special rights for Ezra. This temple had been already rebuilt and consecrated in 516 (Ezra 6:15 "The temple was completed ... in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius."). Also, in the book of Ezra, there is no mention of any rebuilding (or repairs) in Jerusalem while Ezra (a priest & teacher of the law only -- 7:21) was there. As a matter of fact, Isaiah 44:28, Ezra 2:1, 7:8,9,13, 8:31,32 imply Jerusalem is existing then as a town.

to Spin,

Bernard Muller wrote:

Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem has nothing to do about rebuilding Jerusalem "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'." (Da 9:25).

Immediate confessional analysis alarm bells are sounding!!! Ding-ding-ding, confessional nonsense!!!

One then stops and says, but wait a minute, it's Bernard. WTF!?

You must be kidding. What does that statement have to do with any confessional analysis? What confessional thing are you talking about? Why being insulting on such a simple statement, which is not an emanation of faith, more so, I repeat, I am not a Christian, not even religious in any way?

When someone cuts up Dan 9:25, we know first that they can't be serious and second that they must be using a confessional translation. Let me supply the NJPS version:

From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed ruler is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress.

Note that the seven weeks belongs with the first part of the verse, while the sixty-two weeks belongs to the second part. The NRSV is quite similar in its translation and that's the way the verse is understood in scholarly circles, as a quick look at a scholarly commentary will reveal.

The one called the "anointed ruler" or "anointed prince" arrives after seven weeks.Note that the seven weeks belongs with the first part of the verse, while the sixty-two weeks belongs to the second part. The NRSV is quite similar in its translation and that's the way the verse is understood in scholarly circles, as a quick look at a scholarly commentary will reveal.

The translations of the NJPS, RSV & NRSV are in the minority. Most translations have:
" ... From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’" (Da 9:5)
So according to you, who would be that anointed one arriving after 7 "weeks"?
And what do the 7 "weeks" signify in years?

And I need to point out here as I have elsewhere in the forum that the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is not the first but the second such ruler. Ezra 4:5-7 supplies a relative chronology: Cyrus, Darius I, Ahasuerus (ie Xerxes I), Artaxerxes I. Artaxerxes I is followed by Darius II (4:23-24)

What is your external evidence for that chronology? It conflicts with the one from secular sources and accepted by historians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_family_tree

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Spin,

Bernard Muller wrote:

Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem has nothing to do about rebuilding Jerusalem "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'." (Da 9:25).

Immediate confessional analysis alarm bells are sounding!!! Ding-ding-ding, confessional nonsense!!!

One then stops and says, but wait a minute, it's Bernard. WTF!?

You must be kidding. What does that statement have to do with any confessional analysis? What confessional thing are you talking about? Why being insulting on such a simple statement, which is not an emanation of faith, more so, I repeat, I am not a Christian, not even religious in any way?

You have already made it clear that you are not a christian (as I indicated in what you cited), which should help you understand my dismay at your use of the translation you cited. It is disheartening to see such a bad choice of translation. You should know better.

Can you not see, even working from a translation, the problem with simple addition of the seven weeks and the sixty-two? They belong to two separate clauses. The sixty-two weeks indicates how long Jerusalem would stand before the events in the last week, hence the return to it in 9:26. Otherwise the seven weeks has no significance whatsoever. The only reason a christian adds them together is to make the "anointed prince" = Jesus, which cannot be the case if that prince came after only seven weeks. It is a purely eisegetical choice. There is no interest in what Daniel 9 is really about, just how it impacts on christianity.

Bernard Muller wrote:

When someone cuts up Dan 9:25, we know first that they can't be serious and second that they must be using a confessional translation. Let me supply the NJPS version:

From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed ruler is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress.

Note that the seven weeks belongs with the first part of the verse, while the sixty-two weeks belongs to the second part. The NRSV is quite similar in its translation and that's the way the verse is understood in scholarly circles, as a quick look at a scholarly commentary will reveal.

The one called the "anointed ruler" or "anointed prince" arrives after seven weeks.Note that the seven weeks belongs with the first part of the verse, while the sixty-two weeks belongs to the second part. The NRSV is quite similar in its translation and that's the way the verse is understood in scholarly circles, as a quick look at a scholarly commentary will reveal.

The translations of the NJPS, RSV & NRSV are in the minority. Most translations have:
" ... From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’" (Da 9:5)

Think about it: why would christian translators want Daniel to indicate this anointed prince after not seven weeks, but 69 weeks of years?? Difficult, isn't it? The whole prophecy fails to indicate Jesus otherwise. It is conclusion driven bias. That's why you try not to use confessional translations.

Bernard Muller wrote:So according to you, who would be that anointed one arriving after 7 "weeks"?

Anointed prince.

Bernard Muller wrote:And what do the 7 "weeks" signify in years?

Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence "anointed prince".

I don't go for great accuracy in the early part of the prophecy, as I don't think the writers had a good grasp of the earlier history (evinced by the mistakes in the setting superstructure). But Yeshua is indicated to have ruled around 49 years after the Cyrus "decree".

Bernard Muller wrote:

And I need to point out here as I have elsewhere in the forum that the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is not the first but the second such ruler. Ezra 4:5-7 supplies a relative chronology: Cyrus, Darius I, Ahasuerus (ie Xerxes I), Artaxerxes I. Artaxerxes I is followed by Darius II (4:23-24)

What is your external evidence for that chronology? It conflicts with the one from secular sources and accepted by historians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_family_tree

Rubbish. You just didn't pick up on the notion of "relative chronology". The following list is straight from WP and I've grayed out those kings not mentioned. What's left are those kings mentioned in Ezra and in the same order.


What's your problem?

Hi spin,

Can you not see, even working from a translation, the problem with simple addition of the seven weeks and the sixty-two? They belong to two separate clauses. The only reason a christian adds them together is to make the "anointed prince" = Jesus, which cannot be the case if that prince came after only seven weeks. It is a purely eisegetical choice.

I do not think so, because the author of that part of Daniel had in mind an anointed prince coming to Jerusalem after exactly 69 "sevens". And that was not Jesus of Nazareth. All explanations in my extensive study of Daniel: http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html.
Just because Christians used the 69 "weeks" to justify their Messiah does not make the anointed one arriving after only 7 "weeks" right.

Think about it: why would christian translators want Daniel to indicate this anointed prince after not seven weeks, but 69 weeks of years?? Difficult, isn't it? The whole prophecy fails to indicate Jesus otherwise. It is conclusion drivel bias. That's why you try not to use confessional translations.

That confirms to me you are motivated by anti-Christian feelings.

Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence "anointed prince".

I don't go for great accuracy in the early part of the prophecy, as I don't think the writers had a good grasp of the earlier history (evinced by the mistakes in the setting superstructure). But Yeshua is indicated to have ruled around 49 years after the Cyrus "decree"

All that is not clear at all. And why an author around 168 AD would make a case for an obscure undated figure who is not said to have accomplish anything (not even "cut off" within one year or less according to Daniel 9:25-26')? Actually that Yeshua seems to stick around for a long time according to 'Ezra'. That son of Yehozedek is certainly not a good fit.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi spin,

Can you not see, even working from a translation, the problem with simple addition of the seven weeks and the sixty-two? They belong to two separate clauses. The only reason a christian adds them together is to make the "anointed prince" = Jesus, which cannot be the case if that prince came after only seven weeks. It is a purely eisegetical choice.

I do not think so, because the author of that part of Daniel had in mind an anointed prince coming to Jerusalem after exactly 69 "sevens". And that was not Jesus of Nazareth. All explanations in my extensive study of Daniel: http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html.
Just because Christians used the 69 "weeks" to justify their Messiah does not make the anointed one arriving after only 7 "weeks" right.

OK, so we both know now that you haven't got a handle on this text. (I did like your recourse to Croesus. Inventive. But falling for "Medo-Persian" whatevers not so much.)

There are three distinct people specifically mentioned in 9:25-27: an anointed prince, an anointed one and a prince. The only candidate able to be called an anointed prince before the Hasmoneans is Yeshua. That's easy. Then the anointed one is a high priest, who was somehow around not long before the troops of the prince destroy the city. (You can forget Jason, who has no claim to being an anointed prince, just an anointed one. Besides, you can only contemplate him through the seven and the sixty-two addition fudge.)

Bernard Muller wrote:

Think about it: why would christian translators want Daniel to indicate this anointed prince after not seven weeks, but 69 weeks of years?? Difficult, isn't it? The whole prophecy fails to indicate Jesus otherwise. It is conclusion driven bias. That's why you try not to use confessional translations.

That confirms to me you are motivated by anti-Christian feelings.

If you don't like being called out for using crap translations, you should stop doing so rather than merely responding with shallow ad hominems.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence "anointed prince".

I don't go for great accuracy in the early part of the prophecy, as I don't think the writers had a good grasp of the earlier history (evinced by the mistakes in the setting superstructure). But Yeshua is indicated to have ruled around 49 years after the Cyrus "decree"

All that is not clear at all. And why an author around 168 AD would make a case for an obscure undated figure who is not said to have accomplish anything (not even "cut off" within one year or less according to Daniel 9:25-26')? Actually that Yeshua seems to stick around for a long time according to 'Ezra'. That son of Yehozedek is certainly not a good fit.

For some reason you think that Yeshua was an obscure figure. After his appearance in 9:25 Jerusalem is seen as built. He was obviously known by Ben Sira, an earlier contemporary of the writer of Dan 9. (Strangely Ben Sira gives no inkling of knowledge of Ezra, though he acknowledges Nehemiah.) And two prophets talk of Yeshua. You'll need to try something better than unsustainable obscurity. That this Yeshua "seems to stick around for a long time according to 'Ezra'" doesn't easily yield anything that fits the criterion of relevance.

The visions of Daniel weren't written in 168 BCE, but four years later. Onias III was removed from office around 170-1 BCE. The last week started after his death. Jason tried to play ball with Antioch, but couldn't pull it off. He seems to be dealt as part of those Jews of the "strong covenant". Menelaus carried on circa three years later, but Jason tried to come back, causing the military intervention (so we have 3½ years) with the stoppage of sacrifices and the temple pollution through the installation of a cultic statue, the abomination that desolates. The vision writers could see heading for 3½ years years later that victory was not only possible but in sight, hence the 1150 days, 3½ years, 1225 days and 1390 days, as the struggle slipped on.

---

I note that you did not respond to the chronological material regarding Ezra's indications of Achaemenid succession in my previous post. Is that because you accept it, that you need time to analyse it, or that you just don't want to respond? Nor did you respond to the grammatical problem entailed in adding the seven and the sixty-two weeks of years together, robbing the following clause of its time frame and attributing to the writer the unaccountable act of supplying two odd figures (seven & sixty-two) that need to be added together. I try to respond substantively to your analyses.

OK, so we both know now that you haven't got a handle on this text. (I did like your recourse to Croesus. Inventive. But falling for "Medo-Persian" whatevers not so much.)

Don't be sarcastic. I am not part of the "we". How could I? At least it seems to me you read my first webpage on Daniel.

There are three distinct people specifically mentioned in 9:25-27: an anointed prince, an anointed one and a prince. The only candidate able to be called an anointed prince before the Hasmoneans is Yeshua.

That's what you say. How do you know for sure?
"three distinct people" derived from your acceptance of minority translations.

- The Septuagint has nothing between 7 "weeks" and 62 "weeks".

- The Young Literal Translation has for Da 9:25-26:
"And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader is seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his,"

- Looking at the minority RSV translation for Da 9:25:
"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time."
But there is no "Then for" in the Hebrew.

Then the anointed one is a high priest,

I agree on that. But the Hebrew for "prince" can mean also ruler or chief or even high priest as in Neh 11:11. So I do not see why the anointed "prince" (9:25) cannot be the "anointed" in the next verse (9:26), more so because it fits Jason (the last high priest of the quasi-dynastic Zadok line) very well according to the books of Maccabees.

who was somehow around not long before the troops of the prince destroy the city.

I think we can agree that prince is Antiochus IV.

I note that you did not respond to the chronological material regarding Ezra's indications of Achaemenid succession in my previous post. Is that because you accept it, that you need time to analyse it, or that you just don't want to respond? Nor did you respond to the grammatical problem entailed in adding the seven and the sixty-two weeks of years together, robbing the following clause of its time frame and attributing to the writer the unaccountable act of supplying two odd figures (seven & sixty-two) that need to be added together. I try to respond substantively to your analyses.

I explained the two odd figures added together on my webpage already.
I thought a long time about your chronology. Essentially, you say Ezra went to Jerusalem during Artaxerxes II's reign and --I guess your position here. Maybe I am wrong-- the temple was rebuilt during Darius II, not the Great (which would be a long time after 516 BC). In my mind I started to think of arguments against and for. But it was late, and your chronology has no or little consequence for my case. So I stopped right there.
Where else in the forum you discussed of that?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

OK, so we both know now that you haven't got a handle on this text. (I did like your recourse to Croesus. Inventive. But falling for "Medo-Persian" whatevers not so much.)

Don't be sarcastic. I am not part of the "we". How could I? At least it seems to me you read my first webpage on Daniel.

And you haven't thought about the implications of your choices.

Bernard Muller wrote:

There are three distinct people specifically mentioned in 9:25-27: an anointed prince, an anointed one and a prince. The only candidate able to be called an anointed prince before the Hasmoneans is Yeshua.

That's what you say. How do you know for sure?
"three distinct people" derived from your acceptance of minority translations.

- The Septuagint has nothing between 7 "weeks" and 62 "weeks".

- The Young Literal Translation has for Da 9:25-26:
"And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader is seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his,"

- Looking at the minority RSV translation for Da 9:25:
"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time."
But there is no "Then for" in the Hebrew.

No there's not. It is trying to dissuade people from the blunder by making it clearer. Translators generally do try to do that when they attempt to reflect the text. It's not necessary though, unless you are hooked into the confessional understanding. It is sufficient to remove the false impression given in the translator's punctuation, then you don't drink the kool-aid. Can you give a rational explanation for separating seven weeks from the other sixty-two weeks??

Until you stop and think about the issue of these added durations, I don't think you can make any steps forward on the issue. Why don't you break down and buy a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel?

Bernard Muller wrote:

Then the anointed one is a high priest,

I agree on that. But the Hebrew for "prince" can mean also ruler or chief or even high priest as in Neh 11:11. So I do not see why the anointed "prince" (9:25) cannot be the "anointed" in the next verse (9:26),

Firstly because there are 62 weeks between the two. Secondly they are each referred to differently. Third you have a prince to dissuade you from conflating the anointed prince and the anointed one: if you are so inclined to conflate, why not the anointed prince and the prince?? Neither conflation is justified by the text.

Bernard Muller wrote:more so because it fits Jason (the last high priest of the quasi-dynastic Zadok line) very well according to the books of Maccabees.

I think you are plain wrong. Jason was not well perceived by the winning Jewish party. In fact, so not well perceived that he was omitted from 1 Maccabees. There is no reason to suspect that the person who accepted Greek customs into Jerusalem would have been called "anointed" by the Daniel writers who were far too conservative.

Bernard Muller wrote:

I note that you did not respond to the chronological material regarding Ezra's indications of Achaemenid succession in my previous post. Is that because you accept it, that you need time to analyse it, or that you just don't want to respond? Nor did you respond to the grammatical problem entailed in adding the seven and the sixty-two weeks of years together, robbing the following clause of its time frame and attributing to the writer the unaccountable act of supplying two odd figures (seven & sixty-two) that need to be added together. I try to respond substantively to your analyses.

I explained the two odd figures added together on my webpage already.
I thought a long time about your chronology. Essentially, you say Ezra went to Jerusalem during Artaxerxes II's reign and --I guess your position here. Maybe I am wrong-- the temple was rebuilt during Darius II, not the Great (which would be a long time after 516 BC). In my mind I started to think of arguments against and for. But it was late, and your chronology has no or little consequence for my case. So I stopped right there.
Where else in the forum you discussed of that?

I don't say anything about Ezra. You just made that up. I doubt if Ezra existed. To me he is probably an early Pharisaic invention.

Hi spin,

Can you give a rational explanation for separating seven weeks from the other sixty-two weeks??

Seven is God's sacred number and 62 is the age of Darius the Mede when he took over Babylon (according to Da 5:31).[/quote]
I guess the author brought about these numbers to indicate a God's plan was at work, even if the total 69 is not "biblical"

Until you stop and think about the issue of these added durations, I don't think you can make any steps forward on the issue. Why don't you break down and buy a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel?

Why don't you study the Hebrew? modern commentaries of Daniel go all kind of ways and I prefer to look at the primary evidence.
About these added durations: There is no "then for" or "and for" or anything similar between seven "weeks" and sixty "weeks". You have to realize that. But wait and rejoice for a while:
I found that on https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:12:
The accents in the MT indicate disjunction at this point, which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the “anointed one/prince” of this verse as messianic. The reference in v. 26 to the sixty-two weeks as a unit favors the MT accentuation, not the traditional translation. If one follows the MT accentuation, one may translate “From the going forth of the message to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks. During a period of sixty-two weeks it will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times.” The present translation follows a traditional reading of the passage that deviates from the MT accentuation.
The problem is these accents indicating disjunction were created by the authors of the Masoretic version 7th to 9th century. It appears any punctuation of any kind was not existent in early Hebrew texts, even if some might have started in the 2nd century BC.
However, since our author of Daniel wanted his book to be understood written much earlier, it is certain no disjunction was indicated in his text. So we are stuck with "seven "weeks" sixty-two "weeks"".
From http://lc.bfbs.org.uk/e107_files/downlo ... oretes.pdf
"The earliest Hebrew manuscripts, in common with many ancient languages, had no
punctuation system (except for starting a new line to indicate a new topic) and
Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Neither of these omissions was important as
long as Hebrew was a spoken language. Cases where a vowel could readily be
mistaken were to some extent catered for at an early period by inserting consonants
to help the reader: h for an a sound, y for e or i and w for u (although many
ambiguities remained). Full stops were inserted to divide the text into sentences or
verses, possibly as early as the second century BCE, and most verses were marked
to indicate the most important pause to make when reading aloud."

Secondly they are each referred to differently. Third you have a prince to dissuade you from conflating the anointed prince and the anointed one: if you are so inclined to conflate, why not the anointed prince and the prince?? Neither conflation is justified by the text.

I do not see a problem here. It would be understood "anointed one" in 9:26 is the same than "anointed ruler" in 9:25. There is no reason to repeat "ruler" in 9:26. It's like having "Jesus Christ" in one sentence and then "Jesus" is the next one. That would be understood as the second "Jesus" is the same than the earlier one.

I think you are plain wrong. Jason was not well perceived by the winning Jewish party. In fact, so not well perceived that he was omitted from 1 Maccabees. There is no reason to suspect that the person who accepted Greek customs into Jerusalem would have been called "anointed" by the Daniel writers who were far too conservative.

You must be kidding. The authors of Daniel were not conservative, but so hellenized to be heretical.
From my webpage:
"The book of Daniel shows how much Hellenized a form of (heretical?) Judaism had become, another sure indication about the late writing.
As example, the God of Daniel is "the Prince of princes" (Da8:25) and "the God of gods" (11:36). The existence of other (good) gods is fully acknowledged:
Da11:37-38a NIV "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown of his fathers ..."
One of these gods is described making his own decisions:
NIV 10:20-11:1 "No one support me against them except Michael, your prince [even archangel Michael seems to act on his own!]. And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him"
This god also associates himself with important mortal and is not all powerful:
NIV 10:13 "But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia."
The demigod is described very physically (and with material wealth!):
10:5 "I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz [an earthly place known for its gold (also mentioned in Jeremiah 10:9). But how could Daniel identify the provenance of this gold just by seeing it?]!
10:6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude."
10:10a "Suddenly, a hand [the one of the demigod] touched me,"
Later, this "certain man" is seen levitating above the Tigris river (12:6-7), called "my lord" by Daniel (12:8). Also, this demigod does not consider the Jews as his people (10:14 "... your people ...") and not even God as his God, just Daniel's God!
NIV 10:12 "Then he [the demigod] continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, ..."""

Jason was not well perceived by the winning Jewish party.

After his return to Jerusalem, Jason had a lot of power in Jerusalem. Furthermore he was the legitimate high priest. So it is most possible the author of that part of Daniel was faithful to him and considered him in high regard, despite the fact Jason was deadly with his perceived enemies and hellenized. But many in Jerusalem were hellenized then. And the book of Daniel is a good example for that.

From my webpage again:
"Jason is described as being very much Hellenized (2Macc.4:7-17), but also is our author Daniel-2 ("Prince of Princes", the demigod, etc.). While Antiochus was in Egypt for the second time (168), Jason came back to Jerusalem:
2Macc.5:5-7a "When a false rumor arose that Antiochus was dead, Jason took no fewer than a thousand men and suddenly made an assault on the city. ... at last the city was being taken, Menelaus [a non-Zadokite Jew who "usurped" the high priesthood from Jason in 171] took refuge in the citadel. ... He did not, however, gain control of the government;"
Jason is my preferred option (more so because of the next verse: see later). That would explain the ambivalence in Da9:25-26: Daniel-2 might have considered him the legitimate high priest, but because of the atrocities Jason committed after he took Jerusalem:
2Macc.5:6: "But Jason kept relentlessly slaughtering his compatriots, not realizing that success at the cost of one's kindred is the greatest misfortune, but imagining that he was setting up trophies of victory over enemies and not over compatriots."
our author did not want to be too obvious."

BTW, the next verse is, with comments from my webpage:
"9:26 And after the sixty-two 'sevens' [sixty-nine 'sevens' after the decree], the Anointed One [or "anointed one"]
[definitively Jason here, who had been anointed as high priest]

` will be cut off and will have nothing.
[Jason eventually lost his support because of his ruthlessness and fled:
2Macc.5:7b-8a "in the end he got only disgrace from his conspiracy, and fled again into the country of the Ammonites. Finally he met a miserable end. Accused before Aretas the ruler of the Arabs, fleeing from city to city, pursued by everyone, ..."

Notes:
a) The Hebrew word for "cut off" ('karath') has many meanings, including "separate(d)"/"banish(ed)", from:
Ge17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
up to:
Mal2:11b-12a "... He has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob the man who does this ...""

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi spin,

Can you give a rational explanation for separating seven weeks from the other sixty-two weeks??

Seven is God's sacred number and 62 is the age of Darius the Mede when he took over Babylon (according to Da 5:31).

I guess the author brought about these numbers to indicate a God's plan was at work, even if the total 69 is not "biblical"[/quote]
In other words you haven't got a clue as to why the confessional text is so confused.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Until you stop and think about the issue of these added durations, I don't think you can make any steps forward on the issue. Why don't you break down and buy a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel?

Why don't you study the Hebrew? modern commentaries of Daniel go all kind of ways and I prefer to look at the primary evidence.
About these added durations: There is no "then for" or "and for" or anything similar between seven "weeks" and sixty "weeks". You have to realize that. But wait and rejoice for a while:
I found that on https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:12:
The accents in the MT indicate disjunction at this point, which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the “anointed one/prince” of this verse as messianic. The reference in v. 26 to the sixty-two weeks as a unit favors the MT accentuation, not the traditional translation. If one follows the MT accentuation, one may translate “From the going forth of the message to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks. During a period of sixty-two weeks it will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times.” The present translation follows a traditional reading of the passage that deviates from the MT accentuation.
The problem is these accents indicating disjunction were created by the authors of the Masoretic version 7th to 9th century. It appears any punctuation of any kind was not existent in early Hebrew texts, even if some might have started in the 2nd century BC.

Stop wasting my time, Bernard. We both know that you do not know Hebrew philology. And no-one has tried to take you down the path of Hebrew pointing.

Bernard Muller wrote:However, since our author of Daniel wanted his book to be understood written much earlier, it is certain no disjunction was indicated in his text. So we are stuck with "seven "weeks" sixty-two "weeks"".

Rubbish. We are "stuck" with:


That's a confessional text (NASB) without the misleading punctuation, but with the "and" that is in the text, plus the full text, so that you can start to see how tendentious the confessional reading is.

Bernard Muller wrote:...Omitted, your attempts at trying to grasp the issue for yourself...

Bernard Muller wrote:

Secondly they are each referred to differently. Third you have a prince to dissuade you from conflating the anointed prince and the anointed one: if you are so inclined to conflate, why not the anointed prince and the prince?? Neither conflation is justified by the text.

I do not see a problem here. It would be understood "anointed one" in 9:26 is the same than "anointed ruler" in 9:25. There is no reason to repeat "ruler" in 9:26. It's like having "Jesus Christ" in one sentence and then "Jesus" is the next one. That would be understood as the second "Jesus" is the same than the earlier one.

1. anointed ruler
2. anointed
3. ruler

You for some accountable reason think it's fine to believe that "anointed" can be a shortened version of "anointed ruler", while "ruler" is not. If you are into this crazy shortening theory, both should be acceptable to you: "anointed (ruler)" and "(anointed) ruler".

Bernard Muller wrote:

I think you are plain wrong. Jason was not well perceived by the winning Jewish party. In fact, so not well perceived that he was omitted from 1 Maccabees. There is no reason to suspect that the person who accepted Greek customs into Jerusalem would have been called "anointed" by the Daniel writers who were far too conservative.

You must be kidding. The authors of Daniel were not conservative, but so hellenized to be heretical.

You must be kidding me. They staunchly support the covenant. They are horrified at the stoppage of the tamid. They are stridently against the hellenistic changing of the seasons and the law. I don't what planet you're from, but for the Jews of Daniel the conservative religion is touted as the only acceptable one.

Bernard Muller wrote:...Omitted predigested Bernard wisdom...

Jason was not well perceived by the winning Jewish party.

After his return to Jerusalem, Jason had a lot of power in Jerusalem. Furthermore he was the legitimate high priest.

If you can understand the recoil against the hellenization program that Jason introduced, which was attacked in both books of the Maccabees, then it is facile to declare "he was the legitimate high priest."

Bernard Muller wrote:So it is most possible the author of that part of Daniel was faithful to him and considered him in high regard, despite the fact Jason was deadly with his perceived enemies and hellenized. But many in Jerusalem were hellenized then. And the book of Daniel is a good example for that.

(Omitted more predigested Bernard attempting to ameliorate the unacceptability of Jason.)

BTW, the next verse is, with comments from my webpage:
"9:26 And after the sixty-two 'sevens' [sixty-nine 'sevens' after the decree], the Anointed One [or "anointed one"]
[definitively Jason here, who had been anointed as high priest]

That's predigested Bernard. You are not thinking about the issues at all. If you are engaged in a conversation you need to contemplate beyond what you have already set in stone. The natural reading is that after sixty-two weeks of years the writer introduced another person, not the one after seven weeks of years. In fact the writer referred to the person differently, not as "anointed prince" but as "anointed" and as you know any high priest was anointed, eg Yeshua ben Yehozedek and Onias III.

Bernard Muller wrote:` will be cut off and will have nothing.

Onias III.

After that Antiochus (Dan 11:23) "made an alliance... and became strong with a small party" ie that of Jason. This is the strong covenant mentioned in 9:27a, before the stoppage of the tamid. While Antiochus was in Egypt Jason tried to make his return. The result was devastating, for Antiochus came and ousted Jason, suppressing the temple religion. See 2 Macc 5 and compare with Dan 11:25-35, especially from 30b for the move against Jerusalem after Egypt. This is 9:27bi.

Bernard Muller wrote:...