Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi spin,

In other words you haven't got a clue as to why the confessional text is so confused.

Confessional again! I explain the seven and 62. No confusion here.

Hi spin,

We both know that you do not know Hebrew philology

And you know Hebrew philology? Explain that.

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

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.

What is confessional about it? It's an obsession of yours. You see Christian stuff where there is none.
In the Hebrew text, an "and" does not exist but a pause is warranted as such:
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until anointed ruler there will be seven weeks sixty-two weeks. it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."
That follows at next verse: YLT "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah [anointed], ..."

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".

If the author had another anointed one in mind for 9:26, he would have indicated it clearly. He did not.
Furthermore, the author could not used "ruler" for his anointed from 9:25, because in next verse (9:26), by then, he was abandoned & ruled over nobody.

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.

I did not say they abandoned Judaic belief and practice. They just added Hellenist religion features (God of gods, acceptance of the existence of Hellenist gods, a demi-god looking like a representation of a Greek God, Michael also described as a god or demi-god with huge power).
That's not conservative Judaism anymore, that's hellenized Judaism.

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."

Well, the author of that part of Daniel had a different perspective on Jason than the author of Maccabees written much later. Opinion about people changes with time. Opinion about the same person can differ from one man to another. BTW, it it not said in 'Daniel' that the anointed ruler was a good guy, just that he was anointed.

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

Onias III.

Don't you think, if "cut off" means "killed" in the case of Onias, then "will have nothing" is bizarre & redundant?
However, in the case of Jason, with "cut off" meaning banished/exiled/separated with no support & friends (as described in 2 Maccabees), "will have nothing" makes a lot of sense.
BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Antiochus came and ousted Jason

Not true, Jason left Jerusalem before Antiochus came back.

While Antiochus was in Egypt Jason tried to make his return

Jason did return, but he had opposition in Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi spin,

In other words you haven't got a clue as to why the confessional text is so confused.

Confessional again! I explain the seven and 62. No confusion here.

If you want to make assertions, then you can say whatever you like with impunity, but you explained nothing with any substance.

Bernard Muller wrote:

We both know that you do not know Hebrew philology

And you know Hebrew philology? Explain that.

Try asking something philological.

Bernard Muller wrote:

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

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.

What is confessional about it?

If you have been reading this conversation and not avoiding it, you wouldn't have to ask. I even specified what was confessional about it in what you cited: "the misleading punctuation". I have already explained the issue.

Bernard Muller wrote:It's an obsession of yours. You see Christian stuff where there is none.

You have made no effort to understand the problem generated by this repackaging of the verse. The insertion of a ":" or ";" or even "." after the sixty-two weeks is a violation of the text's integrity. It is clearly separating the sixty-two weeks from what follows it grammatically and so alters the significance of the text. Remove the unjustifiable punctuation and you join the sixty-two weeks with what follows, so why insert this punctuation? It involves the use of the text as a "prophecy" regarding the christian messiah.

Many of the people who translated the (N)RSV are/were christian. The difference is that they were all well-known scholars and they attempted to provide a text that traded off accuracy with readability, not with doctrine. The NJPS also features some of the most significant Jewish scholars of the time and it is also another significant translation available for its accuracy. It also has the Hebrew text on opposite pages so you can check the translation.

Bernard Muller wrote:In the Hebrew text, an "and" does not exist but a pause is warranted as such:
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until anointed ruler there will be seven weeks sixty-two weeks. it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."
That follows at next verse: YLT "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah [anointed], ..."

Stop talking through your rectum, Bernard. There certainly is an "and" before the "sixty-two weeks". It's just that you don't know what you're talking about and are at the mercy of your own errors.

Here is a literal translation of verse 25 (+ beginning of 26):


You can consult any copy of the Hebrew text and see that there is a waw before the "weeks sixty". As you may note there are a lot fewer words in a literal translation than what you find in any translation for public consumption.

There are seven weeks from the order to restore and rebuild and sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt. (There is no word for the "for" we use to indicate duration.) The fact that the sixty-two weeks is repeated should help you see that the seven weeks are significant in themselves and are not as the confessional translations have it to be simply added to the sixty-two. The time from the command to the rebuilding was seven weeks and the city remained rebuilt for sixty-two weeks before Antiochus interfered.

Bernard Muller wrote:

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".

If the author had another anointed one in mind for 9:26, he would have indicated it clearly. He did not.
Furthermore, the author could not used "ruler" for his anointed from 9:25, because in next verse (9:26), by then, he was abandoned & ruled over nobody.

That might make sense to you, as your arbitrary explanations at least must make sense to you, but you have not given any reason why the anointed prince and the anointed one are the same that eliminates the same logic applicable to the anointed prince and the prince.

Bernard Muller wrote:

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.

I did not say they abandoned Judaic belief and practice. They just added Hellenist religion features (God of gods, acceptance of the existence of Hellenist gods, a demi-god looking like a representation of a Greek God, Michael also described as a god or demi-god with huge power).
That's not conservative Judaism anymore, that's hellenized Judaism.

And I didn't say you did. I indicated that you cannot see the difference between the religion of the Daniel people and the Hellenists. Michael is not described as anything other than shar, ruler, prince (though not the term used in 9:25-26).

Bernard Muller wrote:

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."

Well, the author of that part of Daniel had a different perspective on Jason than the author of Maccabees written much later. Opinion about people changes with time. Opinion about the same person can differ from one man to another. BTW, it it not said in 'Daniel' that the anointed ruler was a good guy, just that he was anointed.

Mere assertion.

Bernard Muller wrote:

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

Onias III.

Don't you think, if "cut off" means "killed" in the case of Onias, then "will have nothing" is bizarre & redundant?

Onias was cut off long before he was killed.

Bernard Muller wrote:However, in the case of Jason, with "cut off" meaning banished/exiled/separated with no support & friends (as described in 2 Maccabees), "will have nothing" makes a lot of sense.
BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

The strong covenant of Antiochus was after the anointed one was cut off. Jason made an agreement with Antiochus.(2 Macc 4:7)

Bernard Muller wrote:

Antiochus came and ousted Jason

Not true, Jason left Jerusalem before Antiochus came back.

Sorry, bad memory. Jason tried his return while Antiochus was in Egypt. Antiochus took the reports he received as a revolt and came to Jerusalem and pacified the place. Jason had already failed. Antiochus had already accepted Menelaus as high priest. The pacification initiated the final 3½ years in Dan 9:27. So we have

1. Onias III cut off (9:26a, 11:22b),
2. an agreement with the Hellenists led by Jason (9:27ai, 11:23),
3. Menelaus outbids Jason, Onias is killed,
4. Antiochus in Egypt (11:25-30a), Jason rebels,
5. Antiochus invades Jerusalem (11:30b-31),
6. 3½ years without the tamid (9:27aii, 11:31bi) and
7. the temple polluted apparently with a statue of Zeus Olympius, the abomination that desolates (9:27b, 11:31bii).

Bernard Muller wrote:

While Antiochus was in Egypt Jason tried to make his return

Jason did return, but he had opposition in Jerusalem.

Hi spin,

If you want to make assertions, then you can say whatever you like with impunity, but you explained nothing with any substance.

It's about my explanation of the seven and sixty two. What do you mean by your comment? What substance do you expect?
How do you yourself explain the 62 "seven". How does it fits Onias when "cut off"?

You have made no effort to understand the problem generated by this repackaging of the verse. The insertion of a ":" or ";" or even "." after the sixty-two weeks is a violation of the text's integrity.

I don't think so. According to your translation:
"Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two" makes sense on its own and does not require a continuation. It is clear that, before going any further, the anointed prince will appear after 69 "seven".

It is clearly separating the sixty-two weeks from what follows it grammatically and so alters the significance of the text.

Yes it does.

Remove the unjustifiable punctuation and you join the sixty-two weeks with what follows, so why insert this punctuation? It involves the use of the text as a "prophecy" regarding the christian messiah.

(my bolding)
Now we know why you do not like the "unjustifiable" punctuation.

Stop talking through your rectum, Bernard.

Do you expect to win your argument by insulting me?

ותדע ותשכל
Know and understand

מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם
from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

עד־משיח נגיד
to anointed prince

שבעים שבעה
sevens seven

ושבעים ששים ושנים
and sevens sixty and two

תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ
rebuilt and restored street and wall

ובצוק העתים
and troubled times

ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים
And after the sevens sixty-two

יכרת משיח
be cut off messiah

First, I would object for "street" and "wall". The two underlying Hebrew words mean "plaza" and "moat".
Then the "messiah" at the end. Earlier we have "anointed" and then, for the same Hebrew root, we have "messiah". It's not matching and shall I say confessional. That's what I opposed on my webpage, BTW. "messiah" should be replaced by "anointed" or "anointed one".

Second, if you put a colon between "sevens seven" and "and sevens sixty and two", then "rebuilt and restored street and wall
and troubled times" does require a word like "during" (or "within" or "for", etc.) as such "and during/within sevens sixty and two and troubled times". Of course, it is not in the Hebrew. More later on that ...
Without it "and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times" does not make any sense.
However "rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times" on its own looks like a note inserted from the margin to inside the text. If not, that was an in-situ note telling the decree has been fulfilled.
Of course, it would make more sense if "it" (for Jerusalem) would be implied in the Hebrew, as shown in most translations (including the RSV and NRSV: "...it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time").

sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt.

Where is "it will remain" in the Hebrew text?
Actually between the temple was rebuilt (516 BC, later according to you) and Onias III was "cut off" in 175 BC, there were 341 years. But 62 X 7 = 434 years. Quite a mismatch!

BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi spin,

If you want to make assertions, then you can say whatever you like with impunity, but you explained nothing with any substance.

It's about my explanation of the seven and sixty two. What do you mean by your comment? What substance do you expect?
How do you yourself explain the 62 "seven". How does it fits Onias when "cut off"?

Already answered.

Bernard Muller wrote:

You have made no effort to understand the problem generated by this repackaging of the verse. The insertion of a ":" or ";" or even "." after the sixty-two weeks is a violation of the text's integrity.

I don't think so. According to your translation:
"Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two" makes sense on its own and does not require a continuation. It is clear that, before going any further, the anointed prince will appear after 69 "seven".

You have truncated the verse and therefore disfigure it.

Bernard Muller wrote:

It is clearly separating the sixty-two weeks from what follows it grammatically and so alters the significance of the text.

Yes it does.

Remove the unjustifiable punctuation and you join the sixty-two weeks with what follows, so why insert this punctuation? It involves the use of the text as a "prophecy" regarding the christian messiah.

(my bolding)
Now we know why you do not like the "unjustifiable" punctuation.

Still talking out of your anus, Bernard. You know nothing of the kind.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Stop talking through your rectum, Bernard.

Do you expect to win your argument by insulting me?

Asks the person who asserts that I am anti-christian?

Bernard Muller wrote:

ותדע ותשכל
Know and understand

מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם
from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

עד־משיח נגיד
to anointed prince

שבעים שבעה
sevens seven

ושבעים ששים ושנים
and sevens sixty and two

תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ
rebuilt and restored street and wall

ובצוק העתים
and troubled times

ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים
And after the sevens sixty-two

יכרת משיח
be cut off messiah

First, I would object for "street" and "wall". The two underlying Hebrew words mean "plaza" and "moat".

Well, "plaza" is stretching things. It's just an open area, which in a town is a street.

Bernard Muller wrote:Then the "messiah" at the end. Earlier we have "anointed" and then, for the same Hebrew root, we have "messiah". It's not matching and shall I say confessional. That's what I opposed on my webpage, BTW. "messiah" should be replaced by "anointed" or "anointed one".

Now that the pedantry is over...

Bernard Muller wrote:Second, if you put a colon between "sevens seven" and "and sevens sixty and two", then "rebuilt and restored street and wall
and troubled times" does require a word like "during" (or "within" or "for", etc.) as such "and during/within sevens sixty and two and troubled times". Of course, it is not in the Hebrew.

As already stated, in Hebrew there is no word for "for". The language didn't "need" it. Look for example at Ex 10:23, which talks of not moving for three days. Look at the Hebrew and tell me what indicates "for" as found in the English. Or better still look at Dan 9:27 which talks of a covenant with many for one week and find the "for" equivalent in the Hebrew. You have nothing meaningful to say here. You just expose your lack of knowledge.

Bernard Muller wrote:More later on that ...
Without it "and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times" does not make any sense.

As I said, you don't know what you're talking about. You cannot deal with the Hebrew by making assumptions from an English translation.

Bernard Muller wrote:However "rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times" on its own looks like a note inserted from the margin to inside the text. If not, that was an in-situ note telling the decree has been fulfilled.

Now you are making more stuff up.

Bernard Muller wrote:Of course, it would make more sense if "it" (for Jerusalem) would be implied in the Hebrew, as shown in most translations (including the RSV and NRSV: "...it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time").

Umm, Bernard, what's the subject of תשוב ונבנתה (is restored & built)?

Bernard Muller wrote:

sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt.

Where is "it will remain" in the Hebrew text?

The verb "restored" is an imperfect.

Bernard Muller wrote:Actually between the temple was rebuilt (516 BC, later according to you) and Onias III was "cut off" in 175 BC, there were 341 years. But 62 X 7 = 434 years. Quite a mismatch!

I've already said at length that the earlier dates cannot be trusted. The writer wasn't from the period and showed a lack of knowledge of the era.

Bernard Muller wrote:BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Already explained. And here is my timetable again, based on two of the visions:

1. Onias III cut off (9:26a, 11:22b),
2. an agreement with the Hellenists led by Jason (9:27ai, 11:23),
3. Menelaus outbids Jason, Onias is killed,
4. Antiochus in Egypt twice (11:25-30a), Jason rebels,
5. Antiochus invades Jerusalem (11:30b-31),
6. 3½ years without the tamid (9:27aii, 11:31bi) and
7. the temple polluted apparently with a statue of Zeus Olympius, the abomination that desolates (9:27b, 11:31bii).

The earliness in Antiochus's reign for Onias's removal is underlined in 11:22.

I don't put trust in the numbers of the prophecy. They are approximate at best and, while the latest indications will be more accurate, you don't expect them to be like a Swiss watch.

Hi spin,

What do you mean by your comment? What substance do you expect?
How do you yourself explain the 62 "seven". How does it fits Onias when "cut off"?

Already answered.

And where would that be?

Still talking out of your anus, Bernard. You know nothing of the kind.

Can you abstain from this kind of language. The next thing coming will be "asshole", I predict. And then what? Is this board about throwing insults or studying the evidence?

You have truncated the verse and therefore disfigure it.

It's not truncated. Anyway a biblical verse can consist of several clauses.

Asks the person who asserts that I am anti-christian?

On this board, and from me, a non-Christian, I did not think that would be an insult. Anyway, you gave many signs you were motivated by anti-Christian feelings. That's not a reason to keep bombarding me with reference to parts of the lower end of my digestive system.

As already stated, in Hebrew there is no word for "for". The language didn't "need" it. Look for example at Ex 10:23, which talks of not moving for three days. Look at the Hebrew and tell me what indicates "for" as found in the English. Or better still look at Dan 9:27 which talks of a covenant with many for one week and find the "for" equivalent in the Hebrew. You have nothing meaningful to say here. You just expose your lack of knowledge.

But putting "for" in the translation implies an interpretation which might not be what the original author intended.

The verb "restored" is an imperfect.

Actually, according to the Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... onc_859025, it is a perfect, meaning a completed action. If that's right, then, looking at the NRSV translation "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." the "for" does not make sense because it suggests the rebuilding lasted a very long time, like 434 years.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Actually between the temple was rebuilt (516 BC, later according to you) and Onias III was "cut off" in 175 BC, there were 341 years. But 62 X 7 = 434 years. Quite a mismatch!

I've already said at length that the earlier dates cannot be trusted. The writer wasn't from the period and showed a lack of knowledge of the era.

Your later date (very questionable) makes the mismatch worse.

Umm, Bernard, what's the subject of תשוב ונבנתה (is restored & built)?

We both agree it is Jerusalem. I am not against putting "it" in the translation.

Bernard Muller wrote:
BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Already explained. And here is my timetable again, based on two of the visions:

Onias III cut off (9:26a, 11:22b),
an agreement with the Hellenists led by Jason (9:27ai, 11:23),
Menelaus outbids Jason, Onias is killed,
Antiochus in Egypt twice (11:25-30a), Jason rebels,
Antiochus invades Jerusalem (11:30b-31),
3½ years without the tamid (9:27aii, 11:31bi) and
the temple polluted apparently with a statue of Zeus Olympius, the abomination that desolates (9:27b, 11:31bii).
The earliness in Antiochus's reign for Onias's removal is underlined in 11:22.

That does not answer my question: how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

I don't put trust in the numbers of the prophecy. They are approximate at best and, while the latest indications will be more accurate, you don't expect them to be like a Swiss watch.

But you trust the alleged prophecy of the 7 "seven" to point to a certain Jeshua, descendant of Zadoc, the high priest, who was among the first Jews to come back to Jerusalem after the exile.
However, for the 62 or 69 "seven", you are clueless into showing it is pointing to your chosen anointed: Onias III.
I am not. That's the big difference. That's a huge hole in your theory and your preferred translation on Da 9:25-26.

Anyway I do not expect the precision of a Swiss watch. Just +- one year will do.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi spin,

What do you mean by your comment? What substance do you expect?
How do you yourself explain the 62 "seven". How does it fits Onias when "cut off"?

Already answered.

And where would that be?

Still talking out of your anus, Bernard. You know nothing of the kind.

Can you abstain from this kind of language. The next thing coming will be "asshole", I predict. And then what? Is this board about throwing insults or studying the evidence?

There are better words than asshole, Bernard. You should learn the wide range of possibilities. And also what constitutes evidence.

Bernard Muller wrote:

You have truncated the verse and therefore disfigure it.

It's not truncated. Anyway a biblical verse can consist of several clauses.

You truncated everything after sixty-two weeks.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Asks the person who asserts that I am anti-christian?

On this board, and from me, a non-Christian, I did not think that would be an insult. Anyway, you gave many signs you were motivated by anti-Christian feelings. That's not a reason to keep bombarding me with reference to parts of the lower end of my digestive system.

Stop drawing poor conclusions. You do it too often. That's what our conversation seems to be about. You using shit translations and trying to cover your hind quarters pretending you know something about Hebrew.

Bernard Muller wrote:

As already stated, in Hebrew there is no word for "for". The language didn't "need" it. Look for example at Ex 10:23, which talks of not moving for three days. Look at the Hebrew and tell me what indicates "for" as found in the English. Or better still look at Dan 9:27 which talks of a covenant with many for one week and find the "for" equivalent in the Hebrew. You have nothing meaningful to say here. You just expose your lack of knowledge.

But putting "for" in the translation implies an interpretation which might not be what the original author intended.

Any interpretation "might not be what the original author intended". Say something with a bit more sense to it.

Bernard Muller wrote:

The verb "restored" is an imperfect.

Actually, according to the Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... onc_859025, it is a perfect, meaning a completed action. If that's right, then, looking at the NRSV translation "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." the "for" does not make sense because it suggests the rebuilding lasted a very long time, like 434 years.

A poor workman blames his tools. If you knew what you were doing you wouldn't have made this mistake, but as you don't, you rely on Strongs embedded in the Blue Letter Bible. Look again at the word that is indicated by "again". It is actually a hidden verb.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:
Actually between the temple was rebuilt (516 BC, later according to you) and Onias III was "cut off" in 175 BC, there were 341 years. But 62 X 7 = 434 years. Quite a mismatch!

I've already said at length that the earlier dates cannot be trusted. The writer wasn't from the period and showed a lack of knowledge of the era.

Your later date (very questionable) makes the mismatch worse.

Only if you assert that the writer involved had the knowledge you want him to have had.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Umm, Bernard, what's the subject of תשוב ונבנתה (is restored & built)?

We both agree it is Jerusalem. I am not against putting "it" in the translation.

That's good of you, but as I asked, what is the subject of the verb??? There's only one available in the context.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:
BTW, spin, how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Already explained. And here is my timetable again, based on two of the visions:

Onias III cut off (9:26a, 11:22b),
an agreement with the Hellenists led by Jason (9:27ai, 11:23),
Menelaus outbids Jason, Onias is killed,
Antiochus in Egypt twice (11:25-30a), Jason rebels,
Antiochus invades Jerusalem (11:30b-31),
3½ years without the tamid (9:27aii, 11:31bi) and
the temple polluted apparently with a statue of Zeus Olympius, the abomination that desolates (9:27b, 11:31bii).
The earliness in Antiochus's reign for Onias's removal is underlined in 11:22.

That does not answer my question: how do you arrive to Onias III with the sixty-nine "seven" or sixty-two "seven" if you prefer?

Yet again. I start with the end and work backwards. You are the one with the hangup of getting the numbers to be uber-accurate. That is your albatross. How many factual errors are there in the book? If someone could make so many, how would you expect them to get the numbers of years write? One writer thinks there were only four Persian kings.

Bernard Muller wrote:

I don't put trust in the numbers of the prophecy. They are approximate at best and, while the latest indications will be more accurate, you don't expect them to be like a Swiss watch.

But you trust the alleged prophecy of the 7 "seven" to point to a certain Jeshua, descendant of Zadoc, the high priest, who was among the first Jews to come back to Jerusalem after the exile.

It's the accuracy of the numbers I have called into question. You seem to want to ignore the limit I have stated.

Bernard Muller wrote:However, for the 62 or 69 "seven", you are clueless into showing it is pointing to your chosen anointed: Onias III.
I am not. That's the big difference. That's a huge hole in your theory and your preferred translation on Da 9:25-26.

You just have a fudge to get around it. Yes, I've also read that frivolity. There is nothing in the text to support your conjecture. It's pure eisegesis.

Bernard Muller wrote:Anyway I do not expect the precision of a Swiss watch. Just +- one year will do.

Then you should ditch Jason as a bad joke.

And learn a bit of Hebrew rather than making such a mess.

Hi Spin,

You truncated everything after sixty-two weeks.

But you also have "and sixty-two weeks" starting a new clause, implying a break with what precedes. So you do the same as I do, but in a different place.

You using shit translations

Your translations bring about many unresolved issues and problems. Therefore I would call them shit translations.

Bernard Muller wrote:
The verb "restored" is an imperfect.

Actually, according to the Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... onc_859025, it is a perfect, meaning a completed action. If that's right, then, looking at the NRSV translation "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." the "for" does not make sense because it suggests the rebuilding lasted a very long time, like 434 years.

A poor workman blames his tools. If you knew what you were doing you wouldn't have made this mistake, but as you don't, you rely on Strongs embedded in the Blue Letter Bible. Look again at the word that is indicated by "again". It is actually a hidden verb.

You indicated "restored". I looked for "restored". Now you change to "again". This is what the NET Bible (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:24) says on this matter:
"tn Heb “it will return and be built.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys." which relates to what they translate as "It will again be built, with plaza and moat".
Your translation as "sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt." is unjustified and wrong. And furthermore, 434 or 483 years after Cyrus decree brings you way beyond 168-164 BC, the time when 'Daniel' was completed.
if you do not accept "for", what is the relationship between "sixty-two weeks" and "restored and rebuilt"? And how would you indicate it in proper English syntax?

You are the one with the hangup of getting the numbers to be uber-accurate.

Yes, because I can. But you cannot even get close to Onias III with the 62 or 69 "seven". Admit it. Go back to the drawing board or accept my well-evidenced understanding.

How many factual errors are there in the book? If someone could make so many, how would you expect them to get the numbers of years write?

For the last word, I guess you meant "right".
Another way to say that your translation & understanding of 'Daniel' are betraying you.

One writer thinks there were only four Persian kings.

That's probably because of the very questionable idea you have putting the completion of the temple during Darius II. Correct me if I am guessing wrong and please, please, provide the book & verse number for your source evidence.
I never met that problem about the Persian kings.

Bernard Muller wrote:
However, for the 62 or 69 "seven", you are clueless into showing it is pointing to your chosen anointed: Onias III.
I am not. That's the big difference. That's a huge hole in your theory and your preferred translation on Da 9:25-26.

You just have a fudge to get around it. Yes, I've also read that frivolity. There is nothing in the text to support your conjecture. It's pure eisegesis.

I did not have to fudge anything. And the text supports my conjecture. As for you, you would need a lot of fudging to have the 62 or 69 "seven" pointing to Onias III.

Anyway I do not expect the precision of a Swiss watch. Just +- one year will do.

Then you should ditch Jason as a bad joke.

Why should I? It fits 69 "sevens" from Cyrus decree exactly. It fits also his last stay in Jerusalem exactly according to 2 Maccabees. As a high priest with power and army, he fits "anointed prince".

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi Spin,

You truncated everything after sixty-two weeks.

But you also have "and sixty-two weeks" starting a new clause, implying a break with what precedes. So you do the same as I do, but in a different place.

When I supplied the text, I gave the whole text, both in Hebrew and with a literal translation with no favor to one structural analysis or another. You truncated the text at the sixty-two weeks to support your tendentious reading. All you've been doing is supporting modern punctuation. You have no support from the Hebrew and the best response you seem to have is to talk about the English translation: there is no "for" to be found in the Hebrew. Doh!

Bernard Muller wrote:

You using shit translations

Your translations bring about many unresolved issues and problems. Therefore I would call them shit translations.

I guess you'd prefer to go with these hokey christian translations because they are so much better for your conclusions than to go with the world's most respected scholars, people like Bruce Metzger for the RSV and Jonas Greenfield for the NJPS.

Bernard Muller wrote:

spin wrote:The verb "restored" is an imperfect.

Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, according to the Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... onc_859025, it is a perfect, meaning a completed action. If that's right, then, looking at the NRSV translation "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." the "for" does not make sense because it suggests the rebuilding lasted a very long time, like 434 years.

spin wrote:A poor workman blames his tools. If you knew what you were doing you wouldn't have made this mistake, but as you don't, you rely on Strongs embedded in the Blue Letter Bible. Look again at the word that is indicated by "again". It is actually a hidden verb.

You indicated "restored". I looked for "restored". Now you change to "again".

The Hebrew has the verb for "restored", so it's no wonder you got it wrong. Going from the link you provided to the blue letter bible, you certainly didn't. You didn't even check your own crap source, so you're talking piffle. I talked of the verb "restored", but in the appropriate part of the verse indicated in your BLB source, the word "restored" isn't present, though naturally it is in the Hebrew. What you find in the BLB is "again". Look at the fucking thing. You'll see that the word translated there as "again" is in fact given as שוב, the same Hebrew word given earlier in the BLB analysis as "to restore".

You are clueless regarding the Hebrew text. This point has been demonstrated now frequently. You cannot defend these confessional translations.

Bernard Muller wrote:This is what the NET Bible (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:24) says on this matter:
"tn Heb “it will return and be built.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys." which relates to what they translate as "It will again be built, with plaza and moat".

That's some hendiadys. You'll note that the same combination of verbs is found in the first half of the verse and they are both always translated. Bomb goes another theory.

(If you go back to the text I provided you'll see that I highlighted both instances of these two verbs. They are important for understanding the structure of the text.)

The hysterical thing in all this is that you bleed about the RSV's use of "for" and here you are happily ignoring the text due to an analysis that is not literal. Yet you have the temerity to say that a more literal translation that is closer to the Hebrew is somehow wrong! You're hilarious in your flailing about here.

Bernard Muller wrote:Your translation as "sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt." is unjustified and wrong.[sic] And furthermore, 434 or 483 years after Cyrus decree brings you way beyond 168-164 BC, the time when 'Daniel' was completed.
if you do not accept "for", what is the relationship between "sixty-two weeks" and "restored and rebuilt"? And how would you indicate it in proper English syntax?

Read my lips, Bernard. Talking about "for" doesn't help you understand the Hebrew. It's just your effort to obfuscate the fact that Hebrew does things differently and we have to adjust. Now as you really ducked the issue when I explained it before, here it is again:

spin wrote:As already stated, in Hebrew there is no word for "for". The language didn't "need" it. Look for example at Ex 10:23, which talks of not moving for three days. Look at the Hebrew and tell me what indicates "for" as found in the English. Or better still look at Dan 9:27 which talks of a covenant with many for one week and find the "for" equivalent in the Hebrew.

You cannot hope to apply English syntax to Hebrew, so your whine that "sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt" as a literal translation doesn't make sense, just indicates that you are bound to English and simply don't understand what you are doing.

How does a translator know to insert a "for" in the English of Dan 9:27's והגביר ברית ל׃רבים שבוע אחד "he shall confirm a covenant with many one week"? Same problem for you: the English doesn't work very well, but you'll see that it is strictly analogous to that which you—in your ignorance—have called "unjustified and wrong".

You can't admit it of course, but it is obvious. There is no "for" equivalent in the Hebrew because they didn't need one. In fact that you have trouble understanding the literal translation indicates that it works differently from your expectations. It works in Hebrew as is, but in English we have to do it with a "for". They are, after all, different languages, so trying to force it to be more like your understanding of English is a useless pursuit.

Bernard Muller wrote:

You are the one with the hangup of getting the numbers to be uber-accurate.

Yes, because I can.

Only through fudging the data that makes it unfalsifiable. And to do so you need to assume your conclusion just as surely as the fundamentalist does.

Bernard Muller wrote:But you cannot even get close to Onias III with the 62 or 69 "seven". Admit it. Go back to the drawing board or accept my well-evidenced understanding.

You have no evidence. Just assertion.

Bernard Muller wrote:

How many factual errors are there in the book? If someone could make so many, how would you expect them to get the numbers of years write?

For the last word, I guess you meant "right".

You got something right...

Bernard Muller wrote:Another way to say that your translation & understanding of 'Daniel' are betraying you.

...But this non sequitur isn't that something.

Bernard Muller wrote:

One writer thinks there were only four Persian kings.

That's probably because of the very questionable idea you have putting the completion of the temple during Darius II. Correct me if I am guessing wrong and please, please, provide the book & verse number for your source evidence.
I never met that problem about the Persian kings.

I don't know what you are trying to talk about, but it seems that you are once again trying to put words in my mouth that I never said.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote: However, for the 62 or 69 "seven", you are clueless into showing it is pointing to your chosen anointed: Onias III.
I am not. That's the big difference. That's a huge hole in your theory and your preferred translation on Da 9:25-26.

You just have a fudge to get around it. Yes, I've also read that frivolity. There is nothing in the text to support your conjecture. It's pure eisegesis.

I did not have to fudge anything. And the text supports my conjecture. As for you, you would need a lot of fudging to have the 62 or 69 "seven" pointing to Onias III.

What is the Hebrew word for "week" (see 9:27)? What's the Hebrew for "seven" (see 9:25)? Are they the same?? You could also look at that BLB link you provided earlier as they are one above the other. You've made a conjecture without any evidence and you are happy with it. It's a bit like looking at a stopped watch at the moment it indicates and thinking, "it works." Well hey, "seven" and "week" look similar! Fudge, fudge,... wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean?

Bernard Muller wrote:

Anyway I do not expect the precision of a Swiss watch. Just +- one year will do.

Then you should ditch Jason as a bad joke.

Why should I?

Because he's the guy who made the agreement with Antiochus IV and that agreement (11:23) was made before Antiochus's first war against Egypt (11:25f), ie while Jason was in office. Because he's the one that led the Hellenist attack on conservative Judaism (which was so looked on with scorn in 2 Macc).

Bernard Muller wrote:It fits 69 "sevens" from Cyrus decree exactly.

Only after you invent this use of "sevens".

Bernard Muller wrote:It fits also his last stay in Jerusalem exactly according to 2 Maccabees. As a high priest with power and army, he fits "anointed prince".

Power and army? You mean the thousand who slaughtered his fellow Jews? an act that led to his own disgrace and flight. A Jew killing Jews? He's an anointed one in the eyes of Judaism? You could also make a case for Menelaus at that rate. He fits "anointed prince" according to the same criteria. High priest. Leader of the community. The forces of Jerusalem drove off Jason. Poor thing gets put to death.

Hellenizing put both of them against the traditional religion, as represented by the "holy ones of the most high". The traditional religion was centered in the law and the observance of the feasts marking the seasons. The Daniel of the fasting and ashes and sackcloth in chapter 9 is clearly of the traditional mold. A Hellenizing anointed one is a farcical notion.

Hi spin,

When I supplied the text, I gave the whole text, both in Hebrew and with a literal translation with no favor to one structural analysis or another

Sure, you had: "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah"
I objected on street (should be plaza), wall (should be moat) and messiah (should be anointed one).
So, from the start, I do not think it is a good translation. Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?
If yes, how does that translate in good English? (as far as I know, you presented a translation in broken English).

You truncated the text at the sixty-two weeks to support your tendentious reading. All you've been doing is supporting modern punctuation.

But you separated "sevens seven" from "and sevens sixty".
I note the opening of the verse does not ask when Jerusalem will be restored and rebuilt. So "and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall" does not have to be considered as an answer.
And I support modern punctuation because the 69 "seven" and 70 "seven" from Cyrus decree bring me exactly when Antiochus did this:
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; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, ..." RSV Dan 9:26-27

I guess you'd prefer to go with these hokey christian translations because they are so much better for your conclusions than to go with the world's most respected scholars, people like Bruce Metzger for the RSV and Jonas Greenfield for the NJPS.

Not this argument again: because some scholars are allegedly most respected, they have to be right all the time in their interpretative translations.

There is no "for" equivalent in the Hebrew because they didn't need one. In fact that you have trouble understanding the literal translation indicates that it works differently from your expectations. It works in Hebrew as is, but in English we have to do it with a "for".

(bolding mine)
So you accept that "for" is legitimate in the translation. We are making progress.

So now we would have: "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and for sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah"
Back to the same problem: it did not take 434 years to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, streets, plaza, moat, wall and temple.
OR
If you insist on that other translation of yours: "sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt.", then 434 years considerably overshoot 168-164 BC, the time when the last part of 'Daniel' was written:
Does not make sense to me either way.

Only through fudging the data that makes it unfalsifiable. And to do so you need to assume your conclusion just as surely as the fundamentalist does.

No fudging: I counted the years from Cyrus first year as king over Babylon and took what is usually translated as week or seven as meaning digit seven. If that digit appears in a particular year, once or twice, I incremented by one or two the digit seven counter. That's it.

"Now, since I claimed the seventy 'sevens' were meant to point at 167 B.C.E., the year of the unsuccessful resistance (as per parallel passage 11:31-35a) following the desecration of the temple in Nov/Dec 168, I have to demonstrate it, do I?
I never heard or read about the following numerical scheme. It's hard to believe that it has not been discovered (or is there a cover up?).
No tricks, no shortened, overlapped or removed years and "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Da9:25 => Ezr1:1-2 + Isa44:28) as the starting point.
Here it goes. Pay attention to the bold numbers:

Note: first Year of Cyrus as king over Babylon: October 539 - October 538 B.C.E.
Legend:
Year B.C.E., Years from Cyrus' decree, Number of occurrences of the "7" (שבע) in the preceding years

539, 00, 538, 01, 537, 02, 536, 03, 535, 04, 534, 05, 533, 06, 532, 07, 01 531, 08, 530, 09,
529, 10, 528, 11, 527, 12, 526, 13, 525, 14, 524, 15, 523, 16, 522, 17, 02 521, 18, 520, 19,
519, 20, 518, 21, 517, 22, 516, 23, 515, 24, 514, 25, 513, 26, 512, 27, 03 511, 28, 510, 29,
509, 30, 508, 31, 507, 32, 506, 33, 505, 34, 504, 35, 503, 36, 502, 37, 04 501, 38, 500, 39,
499, 40, 498, 41, 497, 42, 496, 43, 495, 44, 494, 45, 493, 46, 492, 47, 05 491, 48, 490, 49,
489, 50, 488, 51, 487, 52, 486, 53, 485, 54, 484, 55, 483, 56, 482, 57, 06 481, 58, 480, 59,
479, 60, 478, 61, 477, 62, 476, 63, 475, 64, 474, 65, 473, 66, 472, 67, 07 471, 68, 470, 69,
469, 70, 08 468, 71, 09 467, 72, 10 466, 73, 11 465, 74, 12 464, 75, 13 463, 76, 14 462, 77, 16 461, 78, 17 460, 79, 18
459, 80, 458, 81, 457, 82, 456, 83, 455, 84, 454, 85, 453, 86, 452, 87, 19 451, 88, 450, 89,
449, 90, 448, 91, 447, 92, 446, 93, 445, 94, 444, 95, 443, 96, 442, 97, 20 441, 98, 440, 99,
<snip>
The reader should get the idea by now. To see the entire table (and much better presented), see http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html. What follows is the last 3 rows.
</snip>
189, 350, 188, 351, 187, 352, 186, 353, 185, 354, 184, 355, 183, 356, 182, 357, 66 181, 358, 180, 359,
179, 360, 178, 361, 177, 362, 176, 363, 175, 364, 174, 365, 173, 366, 172, 367, 67 171, 368, 170, 369,
169, 370, 68 168, 371, 69 167, 372, 70

Here we are! The mystery is over.
The "Abomination & Desolation" of early December 168 B.C.E. would have occurred within the last "7" year of the 70 7's, assuming (the alleged) Cyrus' decree was believed issued days (late October to early November 539 B.C.E.) after the conquest of Babylon. The last "7" year (that is the 372th year --or year 372-- after Cyrus' decree) would end in 167 (Oct-Nov), giving a few months for the remaining Jews (the "saints") to do as described in 9:24 (and stay Jew), in order to get the rewards as explained in 7:14b,18,22,27;12:3.
A coincidence? I beg to differ. The author was very lucky to find a simple numerical scheme "evidencing" events of 168 and 167 as part of a God's plan.

According to the above meaning of the sixty-nine & seventy sevens, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Daniel Part 2 and Josephus' Antiquities, the sequence of events can be reconstructed as such, with approximate dates:
a) 170: first campaign in Egypt, followed by first foray in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV.
b) 169 or early 168: Daniel chapter 7 (Part 2a) is written then.
c) 168: second campaign in Egypt by Antiochus. Jason enters Jerusalem then.
d) 168, around November 10th: Jason is "cut off" and goes in exile.
e) 168, around November 20th: Antiochus and his army enter Jerusalem (second foray).
f) 168, around December 1st: a pagan altar is set up above the Jewish one (abomination of desolation).
g) Ten days later: pagan animal sacrifices are started on the new altar.
h) Late December 168 or early 167: Antiochus leaves Jerusalem with most of his army.
i) Massacres of Jews (which started when the Seleucid king entered Jerusalem) continue for a while after Antiochus left.
j) 167, late winter to summer: Daniel Part 2b is written then."

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Spin,

Bernard Muller wrote:
It fits also his last stay in Jerusalem exactly according to 2 Maccabees. As a high priest with power and army, he fits "anointed prince".

Power and army? You mean the thousand who slaughtered his fellow Jews? an act that led to his own disgrace and flight. A Jew killing Jews? He's an anointed one in the eyes of Judaism? You could also make a case for Menelaus at that rate. He fits "anointed prince" according to the same criteria. High priest. Leader of the community. The forces of Jerusalem drove off Jason. Poor thing gets put to death.

Hellenizing put both of them against the traditional religion, as represented by the "holy ones of the most high". The traditional religion was centered in the law and the observance of the feasts marking the seasons. The Daniel of the fasting and ashes and sackcloth in chapter 9 is clearly of the traditional mold. A Hellenizing anointed one is a farcical notion.

"He's an anointed one in the eyes of Judaism?" Jason was anointed by Antiochus IV.
"You could also make a case for Menelaus at that rate" Menelaus does not fit the timeline of the 69/70 "seven". Menelaus was also not as legitimate as Jason, having gained the high priesthood by outbidding Jason, and not being a descendant of Zadok.

A Hellenizing anointed one is a farcical notion

No, because Jason was one of those.

Cordially, Bernard