to spin,
Here's the bit you haven't got yet. Things are done differently in Hebrew. That an English equivalent doesn't exist in Hebrew doesn't mean that the same basic idea of duration. However a locative preposition (ב־ B-) does exist, such as in the first verse of Genesis B-Re$YT, "at the beginning". Look at Ps 102:24 (& Jer 17:11) "in the midst of my days", ב־חצי ימי, the word for midst clearly has that preposition. There is no preposition in Dan 9:27, so you end up with the duration, "half the week".
What you say is absolutely true.
However the Septuagint, as translated by Brenton from the Codex Vaticanus has "in" (ἐν), as also the version used by the Church of Greece. Both versions might come from Theodotion's translation (150 AD) (Theodotion was a Jew). The vulgate has also "in" ('in').
These Septuagints and the vulgate came much earlier than the Masoretic text, as primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.
It would be interesting to look at all the known versions in different languages, such as Greek and Syriac.
I suspect a particular Hebrew letter got dropped in the Masoretic Hebrew version because, by doing it, it had "Daniel" predicting very closely in 9:27 when the restoration came (accepting "week" meant 7 years).
Also the Septuagint and vulgate has "and" between "sixty-two weeks" and "shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall,"
I am quite sure you have a lot to say about that.
So the 1150 days were written after the restoration but the 1239 days (3½ years) was written before. Yeah, sure, Bernard. The other leg plays Jingle Bells.
The 1290 days in Da 12:11 refer to when the sacrifices were interrupted again after the restoration. The 1335 days of Da 12:13 refer when the Jewish sacrifices resumed, that is 45 days after the aforementioned interruption:
Josephus and 1 Maccabees alluded to that:
This kind of events are alluded to in Josephus' Ant., XII, IX, 3a.
"At that time [163 B.C.E.]
it was that the garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, with the Jewish runagates, did a great deal of harm to the Jews: for the soldiers that were in that garrison rushed out upon the sudden, and destroyed such as were going to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices, for this citadel adjoined to and overlooked the temple. When these misfortunes had often happened to them, ..."
and 1Maccabees: 1:33-36
"Then they built up the City of David with a high, massive wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. There they installed a sinful race, perverse men, who fortified themselves inside it, storing up weapons and provisions, and depositing there the plunder they had collected from Jerusalem. And they became a great threat. The citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, and a wicked adversary to Israel at all times."
Why the updates? From my webpage
http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html
The following "updating" was meant to have the fictional prophet Daniel (or rather his friendly demigod!) predict any event affecting the temple as long as Antiochus IV was alive (and still able to fulfill the prophecies of 11:40-45). Antiochus' death happened in 164. Since the desecration of the temple is described as an "abomination and desolation" of ultimate importance, any reconsecration and further disturbance could not have gone "unpredicted". And of course this demigod had been so accurate in his prophecies from the first year of Cyrus all the way to 167 that he could not have "missed" events beyond that!
I think it is dumb to think that 1150 days were predicted right after the battle of Emmaus, when the near restoration could be anticipated, then the author later refined his prediction with 1290 days, then finally indicated 1335 days after the restoration (or kept guessing).
If the restoration was anticipated in the next future after the battle of Emmaus, then the author would have waited for it to happen and then "update" his alleged prophecy once and for all with the exact number of days.
Dan 9 as I understand it was written before the rededication and the discussion of Emmaus made it clear that I understood Dan 9 to have been written before
That was my understanding. But I don't see why my past statement "As for the battle of Emmaus, there is no mention, not even a hint about it in the whole book of Daniel." conflicts with that understanding.
Read Dan 7 a little more closely. The attempt to change the times and the law (v25) was an attack on the temple, ie when sacrifices were to be made and the laws governing them. That lasted a time, times, and half a time (dividing of time), usually taken to indicate 3½ years, similar to the half week in 9:27. The disruption of times lasted until they were set right. That was done with the restoration of the temple.
Da 7:25 RSV
He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.
No there is no clear allusion to the restoration of the temple there. And
"a time, two times, and half a time" is not 3 and a 1/2 years, even if it was interpreted as such later.
Furthermore, I think Da 7 was written (in Aramaic, not Hebrew) between the two forays by Antiochus in Jerusalem.
On this, I agree with Collins:
John J. Collins Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) p. 38.
"The Hebrew–Aramaic text of Daniel evolved through several stages:
1. The individual tales of Chaps. 2–6 were originally separate ...
2. There was probably an initial collection of 3:31–6:29, which allowed the development of two textual traditions in these chapters.
3. The Aramaic tales were collected, with the introductory chap.1, in the Hellenistic period.
4. Daniel 7 was composed in Aramaic early in the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, before the desecration of the temple. Chapters 1–7 may have circulated briefly as an Aramaic book.
5. Between 167 and 164 B.C.E. the Hebrew chapters 8–12 were added, and chap.1 was translated to provide a Hebrew frame for the Aramaic chapters. ..." (bolding mine)
I never claimed that the writer talked about Emmaus. I wish you would stop making irrelevant claims.
Where did I say you claimed that? I wrote instead "You claim I missed the mark by two years because you insist most of Daniel was written right after the battle of Emmaus (based on Da 8:14 discussed earlier). There is simply no evidence that battle is hinted in 'Daniel'. But there is evidence that 8:13-14 was written after the restoration (as explained earlier)."
You seem to be so confused would you like someone to hold your hand? In 1 Chr 3:4 there are two clauses separated by two lengths of time:
1 Chr 3:4 Dan 9:25
ו׃ימלך־שם
and he reigned there (Chr)
מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד־משיח נגיד
from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince (Da)
שבע שנים ו׃ששה חדשים
seven years and six months (Chr)
שבעים שבעה
seven weeks (Da)
ו׃שלשים ו׃שלוש שנה
and thirty-three years (Chr)
ושבעים ששים ושנים
and sixty-two weeks (Da)
מלך ב׃ירושלם
he reigned in Jerusalem (Chr)
תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ
it was restored and rebuilt street and trench (Da)
The two are strictly analogous in structure. The first clause ends with a duration and the second starts with one. In each case that second duration has a waw before it to link the clause to what came before.
The peculiar structure in 1 Chr 3:4 is caused by the second clause having a reverse order for the duration than the first one. The normal order would be to put the duration at the end of the clause but it is reverse in the second clause.
In Chr 3:4, we have a symmetry: subject , action, location A, duration A, then, duration B, subject , action, location B
That's not the construct in 'Daniel'.
I told you already that "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" in only here to identify "the word".
That does not call for a time duration on how long it would take Jerusalem to be rebuilt or how long Jerusalem will remain rebuilt.
Anyway, your 62 weeks does not work for both options.
The text says nothing about Jason
Maybe, but the 69 sevens leads me exactly when Jason return to Jerusalem and the next seven leads me exactly when Jason is cut off. And what does the text says about Jeshua and Onias III? Nothing. About the battle of Emmaus? nothing. But you are anchoring your theories on these three items.
And never mind what Jason did. He still was a legitimate anointed prince. "Anointed" refers of him being high priest. It is not a statement of admiration.
Why don't you invite a scholar to critique your theory of sevens? That would be fun.
I would love to. How do you think I should proceed?
Cordially, Bernard