Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

  1. #1
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    This is one of those things I used to know well, but have since forgotten as can get quite complex. So I thought I’d propose it as a topic for those who might be more knowledgeable on the subject than I. In advance I ask that we avoid debating the merits of the Bible or Christianity, and do that in other threads.

    Daniel 9:21-27

    21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
    22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
    23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
    24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
    25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
    26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
    27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...09&version=KJV

    There is what to me is a traditional interpretation of this as follows:

    Biblical/Historical Case for Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

    When the correct procedures described above are carried out, it can be seen that the prophecy of the 69 weeks, or the 483 full historical years of Daniel 9, culminates in A.D. 27. The final question of this study is, What do the words "unto Messiah the Prince" mean? They should indicate the time for the coming of the Messiah. It should be noted carefully what a Messiah is. According to its verbal root, Messiah means an anointed one. Thus the Messiah is one who is anointed. Before that anointing the person involved was not fully the Messiah yet. Thus we are not talking here about the time of the Messiah's birth or the time of His death; we are talking about the time when He would appear as the Messiah. There is one person and one only who fulfills this requirement, and that is the one who was anointed as the Messiah in A.D. 27"Jesus of Nazareth. His anointing at the Jordan River, by both John the Baptist and His heavenly Father, took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar according to Luke 3:1, 21, 22. While there are other possible ways of reckoning this regnal year of Tiberius,[24] it certainly is a reasonable and standard procedure accepted by many commentators, chronographers, and historians to reckon it from A.D. 12. Utilizing that procedure and starting from the beginning point established above in 457 B.C. leada us to one specific individual as the Messiah of this prophecy-Jesus Christ. In other words, the establishment of 457 B.C. as the starting point of the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9 is one of the strongest indicators among the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that Jesus truly was all that He claimed to be.

    https://adventistbiblicalresearch.or...niel-924-begin

    Although, the Wiki brings up an interesting point of contention:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9 as a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ.[79] The various christological readings that have been proposed share a number of features in common: Either the "anointed prince" in verse 25a or the "anointed one" in verse 26a (or both) are understood to be references to Christ, who is also sometimes thought to be the "most holy" that is anointed in verse 24 (so the Peshitta and the Vulgate).[42][80] Some of the early church fathers also saw another reference to Christ in the "prince who is to come" (verse 26b), but this figure is more often identified with either the Antichrist or one of the Roman officials that oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (e.g. Titus or Vespasian).[69]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks
    Roman Catholic Doctrine

    In chapter 9 we meet the famous enigmatic prophecy of 70 weeks of years.
    We begin with 9:2 in which Daniel is told that the desolation of Jerusalem is to last 70 years.
    First, we notice that the number 70 is normally round, as is 40. How free this can be can be seen from a comparison of the Hebrew text of Jonah 3:4 where Jonah says Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days - along side of the Septuagint translation of the same line, where it is not 40 but 3 days. The 70 years told to Jeremiah 25:11 were the length of the exile - very roundly, 70 years. But Daniel by inspiration sees that there is a further fulfillment of the 70. years
    We can make it fit rather well with the time of Antiochus, thus:
    1) Start with 605 AD the message to Jeremiah (25:11) - saying that for 70 years they will be enslaved to the king of Babylon. In one sense, which Jeremiah saw, this meant the length of captivity - Daniel does not contradict, but extends the prophecy by taking weeks of years instead of single years, about 70 weeks of years.
    2) 605 BC minus 62 weeks (434 years) extends to 171 BC, the death of Onias, the High Priest, the anointed one (9:26).
    3) Persecution for one week = 7 years, runs from 171-164 (death of Onias to death of Antiochus). Antiochus makes the compact with many, the fallen Jews (v. 27).
    4) The half week in v. 27 is 167-65, the time of desecration of the Temple.
    But, there must be a reference to Christ also, for we note that 9:24 is too grand - there was no everlasting justice, nor expiation of guilt after end of Antiochus. Now, St. Augustine wisely noted in City of God 17. 3, that some prophecies refer partly to OT events, partly to Christ - we know this when they do not fit either one perfectly. So 9:24 refers to Christ. "A most holy" could hardly refer to Onias - it easily does refer to Christ.
    We add two details to the interpretation that takes the prophecy to refer to the period up to Antiochus:
    1) The he in 9. . 27 may mean Antiochus making a deal with fallen Jews - but it might also vaguely refer to Jesus making the eternal covenant. After half a week Jesus abolishes the sacrifices of the old law, and starts the new regime.
    2) V. 25 says seven weeks of years remain until Cyrus, God's anointed (as Isaiah 45:12 said, in the sense that God empowered him to crush Babylon and so to liberate the Jewish captives in 539). Jeremiah twice ( 25:11, dated in 605 BC, and 29:10, dated between 597 and 587, probably in 594) foretold the exile would last 70 years. From 594 to 539 is 55 years, not precisely seven weeks or 49 years. However, in this sort of prophecy that is a good enough approximation - we recall the case of Jonah 3:4 mentioned above.
    We conclude: the prophecy of the seventy weeks works out rather well - with allowance for some approximation - in reference to the times leading up to Antiochus, yet verse 24 refers entirely to the time of Christ, and there may be vague allusions to that same time in verse 26.

    https://www.catholicculture.org/cult...cfm?worknum=55

    The Catholic interpretation explicitly separates the seventy weeks from Jesus entirely, even while purporting to use the same methodology. What is the significance of this, and what do the Bible and relevant history have to say about it? A summary of variations on this theme can be found here.

    https://www.cityreformed.org/uploads..._of_daniel.pdf

    Edit: The Seventy Weeks in Islam

    Apparently in Shia (?) Islam, there is a tradition that Daniel prophesied the coming of Jesus and Muhammad as well? I’d appreciate it if those with knowledge on the subject could speak to it intelligently. This is apparently the case according to one self-published paper from a guy, below. It appears the belief is not widespread in Islam based on a Google search, but the takeaway for me is that Catholic scholarship seems to be alone in disconnecting the chronology of the prophecy from the coming of Jesus.

    Daniel’s Seventy Weeks in Islam

    What makes 70 Weeks Prophesy very interesting and awesome is that it will not only predict accurately when both Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad will born in the future using the pure Lunar Calendar but it will also tell us when they will commence their respective Prophetic ministry by using the ideal or Prophetic calendar in computing total years. And the last but not the least, it will tell when exactly they will fullil their respective main mission using the solar calendar. Therefore in the process of knowing the correct interpretation and computation of the 70 Weeks Prophecy, it confirmed also the validity of their claims that they are indeed both divinely authorized Prophets and Messiahs sent by Allah. Prophet Daniel’s two future holy figures, the one he described as ‘the Messiah the Prince’ is perfectly fulfilled in the person of Prophet Isa (Jesus) and the second one is ‘the Messiah Most Holy’ perfectly fulfilled in the person of Prophet Muhammad. The whole Christendom also considered the 70 Weeks Prophesy to be fulfilled in Prophet Jesus but they missed a very important fact – i.e., the said Prophesy is not only for Prophet Jesus but also for Prophet Muhammad as well.

    https://www.academia.edu/33317142/Da..._Come_On_Earth

  2. #2

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    A translation uncolored by theology:

    Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to end the rebellion, and to end the sin, and to atone for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint [the] holy of holies. Know and understand [that] from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [the time of] an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and a wall, even in distress. After the sixty-two weeks, [the] 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.

    The Holy of Holies is the temple in Jerusalem. Although it's odd that there is no definite article in this case. If it's not clear, everything in brackets is just inserted for the sake of making it easier to read in English.

    Obviously critical scholarship rejects prophecy a priori, but the translation above should make it clearer why the academic interpretation is what it is in the PDF you linked. The word məöÓaḥ, "anointed" in English, is used a lot. For example, Cyrus is also referred to as anointed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #3
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isaiah 44:24-45:1
    Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
    26 That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
    27 That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
    28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
    Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...45&version=KJV
    To my knowledge, Cyrus is referred to as an anointed one because he was chosen by God to facilitate the restoration of Jerusalem. Indeed, the time frame for the Seventy Weeks prophecy is between the decree (there are a few candidates) and the destruction of the Second Temple. The schools of thought on those candidates appear to hinge on the significance of decrees specifying the Temple versus Jerusalem itself. If one considers the word Jerusalem to be material, that narrows the starting point down to some time between Cyrusí initial decree and the decrees of Artaxerxes I to Ezra and Nehemiah.

    As for the word ďmessiahĒ or ďanointed prince,Ē the material indication is what follows it.
    Quote Originally Posted by sumksilz
    Know and understand [that] from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [the time of] an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and a wall, even in distress. After the sixty-two weeks, [the] 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.
    It seems the Jewish (as well as Muslims who believe the prophesy points to Muhammad) tradition sees two different messiahs here based on the parsing of 7 weeks and 62, as opposed to the total of 69.
    Quote Originally Posted by A Jewish Perspective
    Secondly, Daniel 9 clearly speaks of two anointed people Ė one after 49 years (7 weeks), who will begin the rebuilding of the Second Temple. And a second after 62 weeks (434 years), when an anointed person will be cut off. The first one predates the Second Temple and clearly does not refer to Jesus.
    The second anointed one, who did live around the time of Jesus, does not seem to be a very righteous person. Daniel writes that he will be ďcut offĒ (ďyikaraitĒ). Karet, which means excision, always has a negative connotation in the Torah. It is most commonly used for the punishment of excision which one incurs for the most serious transgressions.

    Daniel also states that that this mashiach will be cut off ďand there will not be to himĒ (ďvíain loĒ). It is a cryptic term, but seems to say that he will have nothing left or there will be nothing left of him. Christians interpret this expression as meaning ďhe will die but not for his own sakeĒ Ė namely, the Messiah will die for our sins. But that is simply not what the Hebrew means.

    https://www.aish.com/atr/The-Seventy...-Daniel-9.html
    This can be explained by interpretive difference, for what itís worth. The time between the decree and the destruction of the Second Temple is 70 weeks, 7+62+1. ďSeven sevensĒ are presumed to demarcate the reconstruction of Jerusalem as an indicator of completeness I suppose, if one considers the seventy weeks total to be the fundamental indicator. Punctuation was added later, after all. This approach seems consistent with most interpretations.
    Quote Originally Posted by a Jewish Perspective
    A second problem is that in Hebrew one does not say 69 as: ďseven and sixty and twoĒ. There are no examples of this in the Tenach at all. One says ďsixty and nineĒ. There is really a simple reason for this. All number systems are based on either counting 5ís or 10ís or 20ís. This corresponds to the number of digits on one hand, two hands, or two hands and feet. Most systems used are based on 10s. The Mayan system was based on 20. Our word Ďscoreí, for example, means 20. No numerical counting system exists in the world that gives us the number 69 by saying 7 and 62. Hebrew is no exception to this rule.

    https://judaismsanswer.com/Daniel%209%20Chronology.pdf
    This appears to be resolved in the Christian tradition by reading the text as ďthree-score and two.Ē

    The other key difference seems to hinge on the interpretation of the phrase ďand have nothing/nothingness/not for himselfĒ following ďcut off.Ē Accepting this difference as irreconcilable, the chronology is noted, if disputed, in at least some Jewish discussions:
    The most commonly used decree is the last one, to Nehemiah. This has the 483 years starting in 445/444 BCE (3479/3480 AC), the 20th years of Artaxerxes I, which according to their understanding of the chronology is the time of the decree in Nechemiah. However there is a problem with this calculation. If we add 483 years to 445/444 BCE we end up at 37/38 CE (3960/3961 AC) which is not acceptable. Therefore instead of using the regular solar year, they propose what they call a Ďprophetic yearíof 360 days. They then convert these shorter 483 years of 360 days to longer solar years of 365.25 days. ((483 X 360) / 365.25) = 476. If we count from 445/444 BCE, 476 years later is 32/33 CE (3955/3956 AC), which is claimed to be the year of the crucifixion of Jesus. The last year is put off into the future after a gap which so far is almost 2000 years.

    There is a second explanation of Daniel 9, but this one uses the decree to Ezra by Artaxerxes in his eighth year as the starting point. This makes the start date for the 483 years at 457 BCE (3467 AC). 483 years later is 27 CE (3950 AC). That is when Jesusíministry was to have started. Then 3+ years later in 30 CE he is killed and another 3+ years later Stephen is killed and Paul converts, fulfilling the 490 years.
    https://judaismsanswer.com/Daniel%209%20Chronology.pdf
    From this standpoint the Christian tradition is thoroughly on its own as far as I know, not just by the interpretation of ďnothingness,Ē but also due to the fact it appears the Jewish tradition is reluctant to fix any significant date as a starting point. Isaac Newton arrived at what is, I imagine, echoing a similar mainline Protestant conclusion using Jewish lunar years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton
    Yet threescore and two weeks shall it return, and the street be built and the wall, but in troublesome times: and after the threescore and two weeks the messiah shall be cut off, and it shall not be his; but the people of a Prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, &c. Having foretold both comings of Christ and dated the last from their returning and building Jerusalem; to prevent the applying that to the building Jerusalem by Nehemiah, he distinguishes this from that, by saying that from this period to the Anointed shall be, not seven weeks, but threescore and two weeks, and this not in prosperous but in troublesome times; and at the end of these weeks the Messiah shall not be the Prince of the Jews, but be cut off; and Jerusalem not be his, but the city and sanctuary be destroyed. Now Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth ear of this same Artaxerxes, while Ezra still continued there, Nehem. 12:36, and found the city lying waste, and the houses and wall unbuilt, Nehem. 2:17, 7:4, and finished the wall the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, Nehem. 6:15, in the 28th year of the King, that is, in September in the year of the Julian Period 4278. Count now from this year threescore and two weeks of years, that is 434 years, and the reckoning will end in September in the year of the Julian Period 4712 which is the year in which Christ was born, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Orosius, Cassiodorus, and other antients; and this was the general opinion, till Dionysius Exiguus invented the vulgar account, in which Christ's birth is placed two years later. If with some you reckon that Christ was born three or four years before the vulgar account, yet his birth will fall in the latter part of the last week, which is enough. How after these weeks Christ was cut off, and the city and sanctuary destroyed by the Romans, is well known.

    Yet shall he confirm the covenant with many for one week. He kept it, notwithstanding his death, till the rejection of the Jews, and calling of Cornelius and the Gentiles in the seventh year after his passion.

    And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; that is, by the war of the Romans upon the Jews: which war, after some commotions, began in the 13th year of Nero, A. D. 67, in the spring, when Vespasian, with an army invaded them; and ended in the second year of Vespasian, A. D. 70, in autumn, Sept. 7, when Titus took the city, having burnt the Temple 27 days before: so that it lasted three years and an half.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...s/daniel10.cfm
    So, in the Christian tradition, it appears the remainder of the seventieth week is to be fulfilled chronologically at the time by the destruction of the Temple and the end of sacrifices, or perhaps these three plus years are instead contingent on events like the reign of a potential antichrist described in the passage, culminating in the ďconsummationĒ of the second coming of Jesus in the future. Even under these circumstances, it is unclear to me how the Roman Catholic tradition arrives at Antiochus II, removing the chronology of the prophecy from the temple and from Jesus completely. While there is a logic to the latter approach, I donít know why an attempt is still made to connect the prophecy to Jesus sans the chronology. If any Catholics could explain, thatíd be most welcome.

  4. #4

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    The other key difference seems to hinge on the interpretation of the phrase ďand have nothing/nothingness/not for himselfĒ
    Reading it as "not for himself" is a bad translation. In the KJV, I assume it comes from going word for word using English rather than Hebrew grammar while trying to make it fit the assumption that Jesus is being referred to. The expression ᵓÍn lōw always means "he has nothing". It gets its tense from context. Broken down, ᵓÍn is "nothing", the preposition l- means "to" or "for" or simply functions as the possessive prefix, the suffix -ōw is a the masculine third person pronoun. In this context, the phrase begins with the prefix , which is actually grammatical to carry the tense, but also can serve the function of "and", which is why when you read the Bible, you get a lot of "and..., and..., and..." sentences. Hebrew has no word for "but", but sometimes it feels better to say "but" rather than "and" in a translation if it makes sense to. So long story short, if you didn't know Hebrew well, you could awkwardly string these words together as "but nothing for him", but that's as close as you could get.

    Regarding the "cut off" verb, Leviticus 17:14 is a good example of a similar usage:

    "For the life of every creature, its blood is its life, therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  5. #5
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,105

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Unraveling Daniel has been an objective of Christian theologians/historians since the days of the church fathers. Mathematical explanations for the seventy weeks are easy to find if not somewhat obscure in their reasoning. For my part, I have always preferred a symbolic/lyrical explanations over literal ones; they're certainly more congruent with my reading of the OT in general.

    Here is Julius Africanus' (b. ca. 170; d. after 240) interpretation:

    Julius held to the view that the entire seventy weeks would becompletely fulfilled by the time of the first advent of Christ. Of significance is the fact that he rejected the decree of Cyrus as theterminus a quo in favor of the decree of Artaxerxes in the twentiethyear of his reign (since the city and its walls were never built in theera following Cyrusís decree). He stated,

    It [the city] remained in this position, accordingly, until Nehemiahand the reign of Artaxerxes, and the 115th year of the sovereignty ofthe Persians. . . And reckoning from that point, we make up seventyweeks to the time of Christ. For if we begin to reckon from any otherpoint, and not from this, the periods will not correspond, and verymany odd results will meet us. For if we begin the calculation of theseventy weeks from Cyrus and the first restoration, there will be upwards of one hundred years too many, and there will be a largernumber if we begin from the day on which the angel gave the prophecy to Daniel, and a much larger number still if we begin from thecommencement of the captivity.

    Elsewhere Julius wrote more precisely that his calculationsbegan with the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. ďAnd the beginning ofthe numbers, that is, of the seventy weeks which make up 490years, the angel instructs us to take from the going forth of thecommandment to answer and to build Jerusalem. And this happened in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia.Ē

    In ancient history, dating was often done on the basis of Olympiads. An Olympiad was a four-year period between the Olympicgames. Julius indicates that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes wasin the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad. According to Finegan this would be Nisan of 444 B.C. From this year (the same yearin which Artaxerxes permitted the rebuilding of the Jerusalemwalls; Neh. 2:1Ė5), Julius calculated the seventy weeks. Apparentlyhe saw the terminus ad quem as being the time when Christ wasbaptized and entered into His public ministry, because he based hiscalculations on Luke 3:1, which mentions the fifteenth year of thereign of Tiberius Caesar. Thus Julius argued that there are seventy weeks of years from the decree of Artaxerxes (in his twentiethyear) to the beginning of Christís public ministry in Tiberius Caesarís fifteenth year. One must keep in mind, however, that Juliuswas not basing his dates on the modern Gregorian calendar butrather on Olympiads. Hence he took the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad, and the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar as the second year of the 202ndOlympiad. According to Julius this results in a span of 475 years.He argued, however, that 490 years (seventy weeks) is equivalentto 475 years when viewed according to Hebrew numeration. TheJews, he said, reckoned a year as 354 days rather than 365 1/4days. The former represents twelve months according to the moon'scourse, while the latter is based on the solar year. This amounts toa difference of 11 1/4 days per year but is eventually made up bythe insertion of extra months at eight-year intervals. ďHence theGreeks and the Jews insert three intercalary months every eight years. For eight times 11 1/4 days makes up 3 months.Ē Thus overa 475-year period, there would be over fifty-nine eight-year periodsin which three months would be added, or close to fifteen years inall, and by this means Julius explains how 490 years by Hebrewnumeration would be equivalent to nearly 475 solar years.

    This explanation of the seventy-weeks prophecy offered byJulius is unique among the church fathers. First, he was the firstone to take the terminus a quo as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Second, he viewed the terminus ad quem as the fifteenthyear of Tiberius, the beginning of Jesusí public ministry. His view,then, is clearly messianic-historical, and he does not attempt torelate the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 orsuggest how the seventieth week in Daniel 9:27 relates to his view.
    As a reader of the KJB and a Christian, the question of whether the prophesy refers to Christ's ministry is answered by the language of the text itself. The identity of the "Messiah" is self-evident.

    25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

    26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
    The idea of being "cut off out of the land of the living" is also mentioned Isaiah 53 (Sumskilz referenced Leviticus). I find that it has the same meaning in Daniel. It refers to the crucifixion.

    8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
    As to whether the prophesy is exclusively referring to events which have already occurred (the repatriation of the Israelites, the coming of Christ and the destruction of the temple) I cannot say for certain. Perhaps the "prince that shall come" is Titus. Perhaps it is the anti-Christ. Perhaps both.

  6. #6
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,521

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    The one thing I've learned as a Christian is not to try to unfold prophesy because those that do invariably get it wrong and Daniel's is one of these. The true fulfillment will only be known when it has transpired and so you'll all forgive me for not getting into this debate.

  7. #7
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Unraveling Daniel has been an objective of Christian theologians/historians since the days of the church fathers. Mathematical explanations for the seventy weeks are easy to find if not somewhat obscure in their reasoning. For my part, I have always preferred a symbolic/lyrical explanations over literal ones; they're certainly more congruent with my reading of the OT in general.

    Here is Julius Africanus' (b. ca. 170; d. after 240) interpretation:

    As a reader of the KJB and a Christian, the question of whether the prophesy refers to Christ's ministry is answered by the language of the text itself. The identity of the "Messiah" is self-evident.

    The idea of being "cut off out of the land of the living" is also mentioned Isaiah 53 (Sumskilz referenced Leviticus). I find that it has the same meaning in Daniel. It refers to the crucifixion.

    As to whether the prophesy is exclusively referring to events which have already occurred (the repatriation of the Israelites, the coming of Christ and the destruction of the temple) I cannot say for certain. Perhaps the "prince that shall come" is Titus. Perhaps it is the anti-Christ. Perhaps both.
    You bring up an interesting point about the use of the word “Messiah” in this passage. I came across a rather exhaustive treatment that speaks to its significance here, which is something I didn’t know about before:
    Masiah Nagid

    Scholars have translated the expression masiah nagid variously. O. Ploger suggests "biz zu einen Gesalbten (als) Oberhaupt."2 A. Lacocque has "the Messiah-chief."3 J. E. Goldingay prefers "an anointed, a leader."4 N. W. Porteous takes the rendition "an anointed one. a prince."5 G. L. Archer, translates "the Anointed One. the ruler."6 while J. F. Walvoord has "Messiah the Prince."7 and C. Boutflower, "Prince Messiah" in a similar sense as "‘Nebuchadnezzar the king' = ‘king Nebuchadnezzar*."s

    In Dan 9:25 and 26. however, we find the only absolute use of masiah in the Old Testament.' Here it is a noun without any article or suffix. It is used as a proper name, even a terminus technicusr In vs. 25. it is placed in juxtaposition with the noun nagid; the latter also used in the absolute sense. The two nouns are in the same state and are best understood as two titles. Dan 9:26 presents the second usage of masiah and it may be seen as identifying the first usage more exactly.3 Nevertheless, the expression masiah nagid does not seem to be a hendiadys4 and the two nouns do not stand (reversed) in an adjectival relationship, in which case the translation could also be "an anointed prince."5 (An attributive adjective normally follows its noun.6) This is not the case here. Since the two terms are in the same state, it seems syntactically proper to take them as two titles' with the same
    referent.

    The two terms are both used in an absolute sense as would be proper for titles.2 Therefore, the phrase cad masiah nagid may be properly translated "until the Messiah, the Exalted One."3 This then would refer to a person who is the Messiah as well as the Exalted One.

    Four main interpretations are proposed for the identity of the masiah nagid. Various scholars4 suggest Cyrus as the referent based on Isa 45:l.5 However, the reference of the term misiho to Cyrus in Isa 45:1 is rather the exception and the two terms masiah and nagid would probably not have been used for a heathen king in Daniel where the usual term is melek instead of nagid.'

    A second interpretation is based upon the recognition that masiah nagid "is
    more likely an Israelite figure." J. Goldingay proposes that "if the seventy sevens commence about the time when the exile begins, and the anointed ruler appears after the first seven sevens, then the term likely refers either to Zerubbabel or Joshua.
    A third interpretation prefers Joshua, the high priest.3 as the person that is meant by "the Messiah, the Exalted One." The last two identifications have problems with chronology and do not seem to qualify.

    The fourth interpretation is the one that has been held longer than any of the others. "The Messiah, the Exalted One" is in this view identified with Jesus Christ.4 The designation "Messiah" in Dan 9:25 and 26 in its absolute usage without the article seems to imply that "the Messiah" must be known.' This absolute usage of the Messianic title, coupled with the Messianic nature of Dan 9:24-27.3 seems to fit the Old Testament Messianic expectation and appropriately points to Jesus Christ as the referent in Dan 9:25.3

    "Messiah" (vs. 26). The title "Messiah" appears by itself without nagid in Dan 9:26: "And after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off' (vs. 26). Interpreters are generally agreed that the Niphal imperfect yikkaret_ in the phrase "the Messiah shall be cut off' designates a violent death of the Messiah, specifically by the hand(s) of a second party.1 The Syriac rendition, neteqtel. "will be killed." correctly interprets the Hebrew yikkdret.

    It has already been pointed out that the literary structure of the passage
    shows a relationship between masiah nagid (vs. 25) and nagid (vs. 26).: A, corresponds with B:. Under A„ the emphasis of which is "the Messiah, the Prince." is found the mention of Jerusalem. This phenomenon is repeated in B: where, although the emphasis is on "the city." "the prince" is mentioned. Since the city here is the same as Jerusalem of vs. 25a. it would seem that "the prince" here is also the same as "the Messiah, the Prince" of vs. 25a.3

    This view is further strengthened by the fact that although the physical destruction of "the Messiah" is undertaken by Roman soldiers with Pilate as their leader, the New Testament points to members of the people of Jerusalem as causing His death.4 In fact members of the people of Jerusalem are actually accused of crucifying the Messiah.' The causing agents were members of the people of Jerusalem and the actual agents of execution of the Messiah were pagans. This is parallel to that of the destruction of Jerusalem—in both cases, the causing agents consisted of members of the people of Jerusalem2 while the executing agents were members of a pagan army.3

    Thus, there is a parallel between the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the later destruction by the Romans. Both are caused by the transgressions of the disobedient people of Jerusalem.4 Similar to the way the death of the Messiah comes, so the disobedient and unfaithful ones of Jerusalem may be seen as the destroyers of the city in the sense that they are the cause of the destruction but not the agents executing the destruction.

    [....]

    Jesus Christ, in addition to being the historical fulfillment of "masiah." also fulfills the title nagid of Dan 9:25.: David, among other kings, was called nagid because he was especially chosen and commissioned by God. His line became the royal line for the combined kingdom and later for Judah. The genealogies of the New Testament3 and various texts indicate that Jesus is of the royal Davidic line, fulfilling the functions of the expected Messiah who is also King of the Davidic royal line.4


    The unique context of Daniel’s use of mesiah nagid here is recognized in Strong’s Concordance of the King James Bible as well.


    https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1
    Chronology

    Historicist-Messianic interpreters generally do not regard the athnach of Dan 9:25 as a full disjunctive and thus view, in their chronological computation, the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" as representing the interval between the terminus a quo and the coming of masiah nagid. Chronologically, the 483 years (69 weeks) fit exactly the period between their terminus a quo (457 B.C.) and the appearance of masiah nagid which they date to A.D. 27.

    In Dan 9:26a, masiah is connected with the "sixty-two weeks" in the
    following statement: "And after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off, but without any help: and the people of the Prince who is coming shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."1

    The question is: When is "the Messiah" cut off? A. Lacocque.2 as well as other Historical-Critical scholars3 and some Symbolic-Amillennialist interpreters.4 see the cutting off of masiah as terminating the "sixty-two weeks." This interpretation obviously arises from the separation between the first "seven weeks" and the "sixty-two weeks.” This separation makes the appearance of masiah nagid the terminus ad quem of the first "seven weeks" and leaves no event to mark the terminus ad quem of the "sixty-two weeks." Thus the cutting off of masiah is proposed to end the "sixty-two weeks." However, this proposition seems not to take account of the temporal preposition "after" which is not terminative.5 This preposition here seems to indicate that the "Messiah" is cut off sometime after the "sixty-two weeks."

    Most Futurist-Dispensationalists, while recognizing that the cutting off of the "Messiah" comes "after" the termination of the sixty-two weeks (69 weeks from the beginning of the 70 Weeks), usually put within the same literal week the appearance of the "the Messiah, the Prince" (Dan 9:25),' who is the same as "the Messiah" who is cut off (Dan 9:26).’

    Historicist-Messianic interpreters generally place the cutting off of "the Messiah" three and a half years after the termination of the sixty-two weeks (69 weeks from the beginning of the 70 weeks) which they view as the appearance of "the Messiah, the Prince."3

    When "after the sixty-two weeks" is "the Messiah" to be cut off? Dan 9:26 specifies that the Messiah is to be "cut off' after the sixty-ninth week.4 This means that the event of the Messiah's death must take place in the seventieth week. However. Dan 9:26 only stipulates that "after the sixty-two weeks. Messiah shall be cut off." Dan 9:26. then, although specifying that "the Messiah" shall be killed, does not situate the event at a particular point in the seventieth week. The specific point of the event in time is projected in vs. 27. The analysis of the structure of vss. 25- 27 shows that the weeks are characteristically associated with the Messiah

    [....]

    It has been suggested that the Seventy Weeks may have a sabbatical-vear calendrical background.3 In support of this suggestion scholars have invoked the Chronicler's4 connection between the "sabbaths"5 and Jeremiah’s "seventy years"" regarding the captivity in Babylon. It must be pointed out that the author of Daniel does not make any mention of a sabbatical year or jubilee.7 although it could be viewed that he was aware of them8 had he wanted to use them. The investigation of the term sabuc fm. "weeks." in Dan 9:24-27 leads one to conclude that it means "weeks" in the sense of a unitary and complete whole and thus does not mean "sabbatical years.'" Nevertheless, the Seventy Weeks seem to begin exactly at the point of the ancient sabbatical cycle transition. The sabbatical cycle calendar had the year 457 B.C. as the beginning of a new sabbatical cycle. The Seventy Weeks have their chronological starting point, the terminus a quo. in the year 457 B.C. It follows accordingly that the dates of A.D. 27 and A.D. 34 are all also dates of the sabbatical cycle of sabbatical years.2

    It has been argued in this section that the historical, exegetical. chronological, and contextual picture of Dan 9:24-27 and Ezra 7 (in conjunction with Ezra 4) provides consistent support for the "decree" given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I. in his seventh year, and dated to 457 B.C.. as the terminus a quo of the Seventy Weeks prophecy of Dan 9:24-27.3.

    According to the chronology of the Danielic text.3 "the Messiah, the Prince" should arrive at the end of the sixty-ninth week. The temporal preposition cad, "until." that governs the time of "the Messiah, the Prince" in Dan 9:25. is both temporal and terminative. Thus, from the beginning point in time from the going forth of the "word" "to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah, the Prince" consists of sixty-nine weeks.4 The preposition "until" is the temporal link from the terminus a quo to the coming of "the Messiah, the Prince." Since the terminus a quo of the Seventy Weeks, which is by the same token the beginning point of the sixty-nine weeks, is to be dated to 457 B.C.. the chronology puts the coming of "the Messiah, the Prince" in the year A.D. 27.5 Thus, if the chronology runs successively in history, then "the Messiah, the Prince" has to appear in A.D. 27 and neither before nor later.

    The historical event that took place in A.D. 27 was the baptism of Jesus. According to Luke 3:1-3, 21. John started baptizing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. At this time Jesus was baptized (Luke 3:21).

    The decree o f Artaxerxes I given to Ezra in 457 B.C.. among the decrees, fulfills the requirements of Dan 9:25 for the terminus a quo of the Seventy Weeks. It restores Jerusalem in terms of political organization which allows self-governance. The power given to the leadership of this group was understood by the returnees to include the authority to build the city and its walls, which they started to do. Thus, the terminus a quo of the 490 years intended with the Seventy Weeks has been dated to 457 B.C.. when the decree was promulgated to Ezra by Artaxerxes I.

    The permission given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I in 444 B.C. gave authority to continue the work that Ezra had already started. Since the work had already been started, this permission to continue prior work cannot be viewed as fulfilling the "word" and decree that gave the initial authority "to restore and to build Jerusalem." The permission has in focus the building of the walls, but does not address the restoration of Jerusalem as a political entity. That had been granted years before to Ezra.

    At the level of terminus a quo. the events of the seventieth week relate to the Messiah. The appearance of the Messiah terminates the sixty-ninth week and at the same time inaugurates the seventieth in A.D. 27. In the middle of the Messianic seventieth week, which starts in A.D. 27. the Messiah of Dan 9:26. who is the same as the Messiah, the Prince of vs. 25. is "cut off' in the middle of the week, that is. A.D. 31. In that year, with this crucifixion of the Messiah, the efficacy of the Old Testament "sacrifices and offerings" ended, Jerusalem ceased to be the holy city of the chosen people and the sentence of its doom was passed on it. The cessation of the "sacrifices and offerings" was signified by the tearing from top to bottom of the Temple veil. The doom of Jerusalem was sealed through the decision of the unfaithful in rejecting the Messiah. The historical figure who fits "the Messiah, the Prince" of Dan 9:25, the Messiah of vs. 26. the Prince of vs. 26. the covenant Prince of vs. 27. the One who causes "sacrifice and offering" to cease in the middle of the week, is the same individual. Jesus Christ.


    The seventieth week was the subject of investigation at the level of the terminus ad quem of the Seventy Weeks. At this level, it was found that the events of the seventieth week related to the Messiah. The appearance of the Messiah. Jesus Christ, is at the event of His anointing during His baptism at the end of the sixty- ninth week. A.D. 27. and thereby inaugurates the seventieth week. He is subsequently cut off in A.D. 31. the middle of the seventieth week, after three and a half years of ministry. The efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices then ceases at the death of the Messiah, and the sentence of the doom of Jerusalem is passed. The seventieth week is found to terminate in A.D. 34.

    Your mileage may vary as to the significance of the end date. I personally do not believe the chronology supports links to Antiochus, nor to a future antichrist as fulfillment of the seventy weeks. This prophecy is about Jesus, and if the chronology points to his incarnation and death, it must also point to the chronological end of 490 years, which lands very near the stoning of Stephen, Paul’s conversion, and the release of the Gospel.

    Jewish critics are, to me, correct to highlight the discrepancy:
    As to the last week, that is also a problem. According to the first we have a large gap between the 69 weeks and the last week; a gap of almost 2000 years. In Daniel we are told there is a 70 week total period and such a gap is not credible. Some say that the last week applies to the destruction of the Second Temple, which introduces a much smaller gap, but still one of about 40 years, which is around 5 weeks. With no explanation of why there needs to be a gap at all, this is just wishful thinking.

    https://judaismsanswer.com/Daniel%209%20Chronology.pdf
    Based on a reading of the text, we know the Messiah will be cut off prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. It is not necessarily the contingent terminus of the prophecy, as the latter is based explicitly on the 490 year timeframe.
    Source:
    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...=dissertations
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark 8:27-34
    And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

    28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

    29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

    30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

    31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

    32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

    33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

    34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    The one thing I've learned as a Christian is not to try to unfold prophesy because those that do invariably get it wrong and Daniel's is one of these. The true fulfillment will only be known when it has transpired and so you'll all forgive me for not getting into this debate.
    I wouldn’t treat this as speculatively as one might caution against in other apocalyptic cases like Daniel’s beasts in Chapter 7 (though, there again, another thread could be made to demonstrate the historical and Biblical indications linking the “little horn” to the papacy). Given the vast majority if not all of what is discussed here is historical, it is debatable to say whether or not the prophecy has been fulfilled. I don’t say this as an indictment, of course, only that I wouldn’t worry about having a look at the text. More importantly, I should think that it is all the more vital to test and illuminate a historical prophecy which purports to demonstrate the coming, death, and divinity of Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Reading it as "not for himself" is a bad translation. In the KJV, I assume it comes from going word for word using English rather than Hebrew grammar while trying to make it fit the assumption that Jesus is being referred to. The expression ᵓÍn lōw always means "he has nothing". It gets its tense from context. Broken down, ᵓÍn is "nothing", the preposition l- means "to" or "for" or simply functions as the possessive prefix, the suffix -ōw is a the masculine third person pronoun. In this context, the phrase begins with the prefix wə, which is actually grammatical to carry the tense, but also can serve the function of "and", which is why when you read the Bible, you get a lot of "and..., and..., and..." sentences. Hebrew has no word for "but", but sometimes it feels better to say "but" rather than "and" in a translation if it makes sense to. So long story short, if you didn't know Hebrew well, you could awkwardly string these words together as "but nothing for him", but that's as close as you could get.

    Regarding the "cut off" verb, Leviticus 17:14 is a good example of a similar usage:

    "For the life of every creature, its blood is its life, therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."
    Thanks for this. Doing some digging, it appears the choice of “but not for himself” is more stylistic continuity than a material indicator. If one were to consider the text itself, it could refer to circumstances of Jesus’ death from a Christian theological standpoint. I’d be interested to know if this particular cryptic expression about “nothingness” appears elsewhere in Scripture?
    25a: From the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be
    B: 25b: seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks
    B,: 26a: And after sixty-two weeks
    A,: 26b: the Messiah shall be cut off. no one for him
    A2: 27a: And he shall make strong a covenant with the many B,: 27b: for one week
    B3: 27c : And in the middle ofthe week
    A3: 27d: he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease

  8. #8

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Iíd be interested to know if this particular cryptic expression about ďnothingnessĒ appears elsewhere in Scripture?
    It doesn't appear cryptically like that anywhere else in the Bible as far as I know. It's usually followed by a verb, so rather than "nothing" it will be "nothing to drink" for example. If it's followed by a noun, then it means having none of whatever that noun is.

    About nāḡÓḏ, I translated it as "prince" like everyone else does, because I couldn't think of a better word, but it's not exactly prince, or maybe it changed meaning over time.

    This is the HALOT entry:



    I know that's probably not very easy to make anything out of. At the beginning are cognates with languages listed like EgArm = Egyptian Aramaic and Arb = Arabic, then there are academic references, followed by definitions with biblical references to where they appear, for example 2C = 2 Chronicles, 1K = 1 Kings.

    If you really want to understand the nuances of a Semitic word though, it's good to know the meaning of its verbal root, all Semitic nouns are made from verbs, so here is the entry for its verbal root which includes definitions for all the verb's various forms:



    In the nāḡÓḏ entry, you'll see the Daniel 9:25 reference. The secular academic view is that it refers there to Antiochus IV Epiphanes or Onias III. I've attached an article from The Catholic Biblical Quarterly that engages with that: Daniel 9 - Its Structure and Meaning.pdf

    That's a peer-reviewed theological journal.

    You may want to look at the Daniel 11:22 usage as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  9. #9
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    It doesn't appear cryptically like that anywhere else in the Bible as far as I know. It's usually followed by a verb, so rather than "nothing" it will be "nothing to drink" for example. If it's followed by a noun, then it means having none of whatever that noun is.

    About nāḡÓḏ, I translated it as "prince" like everyone else does, because I couldn't think of a better word, but it's not exactly prince, or maybe it changed meaning over time.

    This is the HALOT entry:

    I know that's probably not very easy to make anything out of. At the beginning are cognates with languages listed like EgArm = Egyptian Aramaic and Arb = Arabic, then there are academic references, followed by definitions with biblical references to where they appear, for example 2C = 2 Chronicles, 1K = 1 Kings.

    If you really want to understand the nuances of a Semitic word though, it's good to know the meaning of its verbal root, all Semitic nouns are made from verbs, so here is the entry for its verbal root which includes definitions for all the verb's various forms:

    In the nāḡÓḏ entry, you'll see the Daniel 9:25 reference. The secular academic view is that it refers there to Antiochus IV Epiphanes or Onias III. I've attached an article from The Catholic Biblical Quarterly that engages with that: Daniel 9 - Its Structure and Meaning.pdf

    That's a peer-reviewed theological journal.

    You may want to look at the Daniel 11:22 usage as well.
    I appreciate the additional context. It was helpful to dig into the use of “nagid” here. As an example, Daniel 11:22 mentioned nagiyd beriyth, which Strong’s connects with “prince of the covenant.” The Seven Weeks speaks of mashiyach nagiyd within the specific chronology.

    The dissertation I linked to speaks to the unique context, IMO.
    Why Daniel 9’s Messiah is Different

    The noun masfah comes from msh which means "to smear, anoint."2
    masfah is a noun of the qatil formation. It is assigned the same meaning as the Oal passive participle.3 "anointed," except that when it is used as a noun it is assigned the meaning "anointed one."4
    The expression nagfd comes from the root ngd, "to be high, to be lifted up.

    to be elevated."1 The expression nagfd has been traditionally defined to mean "leader, prince, ruler, chief."2 According to G. F. Hasel. "the form nagfd. derived as a qatil formation from the root ngd. has the original basic meaning of 'exalted one. high one’."3 It is a designation for a function which is assigned to persons who carry this designation of highness upon their commissioning.4 Among persons designated as nagfd are Saul, especially David, Solomon. Abijah. Jeroboam. Basha. and Hezekiah. To be nagfd means to be so chosen by God. and the nagfd is a person that supports, upholds, and lives within the framework of the covenant.5

    masfah and nagfd in the Old Testament

    The masculine noun masfah means "anointed one."6 This noun is used thirty-eight times in the Old Testament for different persons.7 The term is used mostly (thirty times) in the Old Testament for kings (Saul. David. Cyrus, and others) who are respectively "the Anointed." It is also used six times to refer to a High
    Priest.1and twice with reference to fathers (that is. the patriarchs).2

    The masculine noun nagid has the literal meaning of "exalted one. high one."3 The substantive nagid is found in fourteen of the Old Testament books.4

    The greatest concentration is found in the Historical Books with thirty-three occurrences;5 then there are four in the Wisdom literature.6 three in the Major Prophets.7 three in the Apocalyptic literature,8 and one in the Psalms (76:13).4

    masiah and nagid in the book o f Daniel

    In the book of Daniel, the term masiah appears only twice.10and nagid
    three times." The two terms appear together, and once each separately in Dan. 9:25. 26. Theodotion renders the expression in Dan 9:25 with christou hegoumenou which is the equivalent of masiah nagid. One wonders, however, whether the LXX rendition of kurio should be applied to masiah or nagid. The Syriac has mswhh mlkh1and the Vulgate reads ad Christum ducem.

    Scholars have translated the expression masiah nagid variously. O. Ploger suggests "biz zu einen Gesalbten (als) Oberhaupt."2 A. Lacocque has "the Messiah-chief."3 J. E. Goldingay prefers "an anointed, a leader."4 N. W. Porteous takes the rendition "an anointed one. a prince."5 G. L. Archer, translates "the Anointed One. the ruler."6 while J. F. Walvoord has "Messiah the Prince."7 and C. Boutflower, "Prince Messiah" in a similar sense as "‘Nebuchadnezzar the king' = ‘king Nebuchadnezzar*."s

    In Dan 9:25 and 26. however, we find the only absolute use of masiah in the Old Testament.' Here it is a noun without any article or suffix. It is used as a proper name, even a terminus technicusr In vs. 25. it is placed in juxtapositionwith the noun nagid; the latter also used in the absolute sense. The two nouns are in the same state and are best understood as two titles. Dan 9:26 presents the second usage of masiah and it may be seen as identifying the first usage more exactly.3 Nevertheless, the expression masiah nagid does not seem to be a hendiadys4 and the two nouns do not stand (reversed) in an adjectival relationship, in which case the translation could also be "an anointed prince."5 (An attributive adjective normally follows its noun.6) This is not the case here. Since the two terms are in the same state, it seems syntactically proper to take them as two titles' with the same referent.

    The two terms are both used in an absolute sense as would be proper for titles.2 Therefore, the phrase cad masiah nagid may be properly translated "until the Messiah, the Exalted One."3 This then would refer to a person who is the Messiah as well as the Exalted One

    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...=dissertations

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning
    According to Dan 9:25, seven weeks of years would elapse between the time the word went forth to restore the city until the time of an "anointed one." The identity of that "anointed one" is also debated. Nominees include Cyrus (on the basis of Isa 45:1), 7 Zerubbabel (on the basis of passages like Ezra 5:2; Hag 1:1; Zech 4:6-10), 8 and Joshua the high priest (on the basis of passages like Zech 6:1 1-12).9 While Cyrus is certainly called God's "anointed one" in Isa 45:1, the more natural reading of Dan 9:25 is that the "anointed one" would flourish in Jerusalem. Scholars who understand the high priest Onias III as the second "anointed one" mentioned in Dan 9:26 often choose Joshua over Zerubbabel because similar statements are made about the two.10 Scholars who see the time frame beginning in 458 or 445 interpret the forty- nine years as the time that generation took to rebuild Jerusalem and get its affairs in order again after the exile.11 In that case, of course, the identity of the first "anointed one" remains unknown.

    According to 9:26, after another period of sixty-two weeks of years a second "anointed one" would be cut off and a prince would destroy the city of Jerusalem. There are basically two nominees for this person: Onias III whose death was followed by the persecutions of the Seleucids,12 and Jesus, whose death was followed, decades later, by the destruction wrought b Romans.13 Since 9:27 alludes to the same actions of Antiochus IV denounced elsewhere in the Book of Daniel, it seems best to take Onias III as that second "anointed one," as virtually all critical scholars do, thus eliminating the traditional view that v. 26 predicts the death of Jesus.14 Even so, the problem remains that no really satisfactory solution has yet been offered that makes the sixty-ninth week of years end in 171, the year of Onias' death (or that makes it end with the death of Jesuß either, for that matter).

    To summarize the debate over the seventy weeks of years, one may point to disagreement about when they began, the identity of the two "anointed ones," and when they end. Those issues seem best solved by understanding 586 as the year when the seventy years begin, Joshua as the first "anointed one," Onias III as the second "anointed one," and a time shortly after Onias' death as the time when they end.
    To divorce the chronology from the text is one thing, since the critical view is inherently skeptical of prophecy anyway. To do so in order to fit a premise that the prophecy must connect with Antiochus IV for the sake of presumed continuity, while also considering verses 25, 26 and 27 completely separate events/timelines for ad hoc purposes, seems to be more dogmatic than it is contingent on the text.

    The author appears to gloss over the significance of mashiyach nagiyd, which is inevitable I suppose, since he is looking for two different people. However, he also acknowledges the decree to Ezra, but starts elsewhere solely on the basis that he needs to fit the prophecy with said people. Given the importance of such a premise in justifying subsequent conclusions, I find it odd he would use it only to concede this cleavage as a point in need of further research. Moreover, he acknowledges that his rationale for the second is contingent on when he thinks that person is, rather than the chronology. At a minimum, I find the methodology requires a dogmatic benefit of the doubt that supersedes the presumed traditional bias in favor of Jesus. That’s just my possibly confused two cents though. Do you happen to have the “earlier study” the author mentions on page 241? I couldn’t find it on Google.

    A more nuanced treatment:

    On the Critical View and Antiochus IV

    Chronological Interpretations Terminating in Maccabean Times" are advanced and supported by Historical-Critical interpreters. A basic conviction of Historical-Critical scholars is the view that the prophecy of Dan 9:24-27 is a vaticinia ex eventu.1

    While Historical-Critical scholars generally take the prophecy as non- Messianic, some deviate from the general attempt to compute the figures in Dan 9:24-27 (i.e., 7+62+1) into a single horizontal line of historical-chronological sequence. Such scholars do not follow the general view of computation. They posit that the Seventy Weeks were not meant to be computed with exact arithmetic chronological significance."1 Among the reasons for this is the fact that the 490 years cannot be made to tit a strict sequence which concludes with Antiochus Epiphanes.

    Historical-Critical interpreters, however, generally agree on a Maccabean time terminus ad quem while the terminus a quo is variously based on the Jeremianic word of either Jer 25:2 or 29:10. They insist that the athnach under sibcah (i.e.. after the words "seven weeks”) is completely disjunctive, which brings the appearance of "Messiah, the Prince" at the end of the first seven weeks. The "Prince who shall come" (vs. 26b) is accordingly identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. who is said to make a covenant with the Jews (vs. 27a).

    The chronological interpretations terminating in Maccabean times have failed to achieve any chronological harmony based on the text of either Jeremiah or Daniel. The following are major problems that have emerged from Maccabean- based interpretations:

    1. Diverse dates, such as 606, 605. 594. 586. and 587 B.C.. are used by the Historical-Critical school for the terminus a quo of the Seventy Weeks. They do not provide sufficient sequential time to fit a total cf 490 years into their computation that terminates with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Their appeal to supposed inaccuracies in the chronological data in Dan 9:24-27 does not seem to provide adequate solutions to the chronological problems of the Historical-Critical interpreters.

    2. Textual issues that affect chronological determinations which called for clarifications include the following: (a) the attachment of the person designated "Messiah, the Prince" to the first seven weeks, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem over a period of sixty-two weeks (434 years), (b) the attribution of the destruction of the city of Dan 9 to the period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. who is not known to have destroyed Jerusalem, and (c) the Seventy Weeks (vss. 26-27) do not seem to end with a restoration and purification of the temple as suggested by the Historical- Critical interpretation.

    PS: searching Strong’s, it seems the KJV phrase “but not for himself and the people....,” was derived from this word: עַם . Is this the same as “v’ain lo?”

  10. #10

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    This probably against the rules. This is a fantastic read. How I didn’t know all Semitic nouns come from verbs is throwing me for a loop.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    I appreciate the additional context. It was helpful to dig into the use of “nagid” here. As an example, Daniel 11:22 mentioned nagiyd beriyth, which Strong’s connects with “prince of the covenant.”
    Incidentally, in Modern Hebrew the United States is ᵓărāṣōwṯ hābərÓṯ (lands of the covenant).

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Do you happen to have the “earlier study” the author mentions on page 241?
    Yeah, here: Daniel 11 and the sociohistorical setting of the Book of Daniel.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    PS: searching Strong’s, it seems the KJV phrase “but not for himself and the people....,” was derived from this word: עַם . Is this the same as “v’ain lo?”
    A quick note on transliteration in case anyone following along is confused, "v’ain lo" is informal transliteration based on Ashkenazi pronunciation. This was also used in older academic and theological publications. There isn't really any standardization to it. When I write it as wəᵓÍn lōw, I'm using the standard academic transliteration which reflects the ancient pronunciation, indicates exactly how it is spelled in Hebrew (wᵓnlw), and is standard across all the ancient Near Eastern languages. I can understand any transliteration you come across, so no problem there, but for the sake of not making it more confusing, I'll try to remain self-consistent by using the standard transliteration.

    So anyway, עם is ām (Romanized spelling = ᶜm). It appears much later in the sentence: wəᵓÍn lōw (and he will have nothing) wəhāᶜÓr wəhaqqōḏeš (and the city and the sanctuary) yašḥÓṯ (shall be destroyed) ᶜām nāḡÓḏ habbā (by the people of the nagid to come). So I don't see how anyone could connect the two like that. The original KJV seems to have, but more recent versions have changed this with punctuation. Also, "and the people" would be wəhāᶜām, spelled והעם (whᶜm).

    Quote Originally Posted by wanderwegger View Post
    This probably against the rules. This is a fantastic read. How I didn’t know all Semitic nouns come from verbs is throwing me for a loop.
    It's a very organized system, especially the verbs. For example, "to teach" and "to learn" are from the same triconsonantal root, because "to teach" is "to cause to learn" so it just uses a causal conjugation. Then "to kill" and "to die" have the same relationship so they are formed identically just using different triconsonantal root. All the conceptually related nouns are formed from those roots in a consistent manner.

    This makes Semitic languages very conservative, because you can't just change a word, you have to change a family of words or a system. The triconsonantal roots are shared across languages, so that when I learned Akkadian, I discovered that I already knew a lot of the vocabulary from Hebrew, I just needed to plug the roots I knew from Hebrew into the Akkadian system.

    The animal names are interesting. For example, in Hebrew (maybe in others) hamster comes from "to horde" and goat comes from "to be hairy". Dove comes from "to laugh" which I never understood until I heard the doves in the Levant.
    Last edited by sumskilz; August 03, 2020 at 04:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #12
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Thanks for all this. I wish I could understand Hebrew and Greek. Ah, to have had a classical education. I read through the authorís ďearlier study,Ē and it seemed primarily dedicated to debating the authorship of Daniel so as to match the timing needed to arrive at Antiochus IV. To do this he posits that Daniel and namely Chapter 11 were reverse engineered by ďa groupĒ at that time. Do you have an idea of why the authorís line of thinking is married to that specific time frame? Because I donít feel too biased in saying it must be rooted well outside the text.

  13. #13
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,105

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Thanks for all this. I wish I could understand Hebrew and Greek. Ah, to have had a classical education. I read through the author’s “earlier study,” and it seemed primarily dedicated to debating the authorship of Daniel so as to match the timing needed to arrive at Antiochus IV. To do this he posits that Daniel and namely Chapter 11 were reverse engineered by “a group” at that time. Do you have an idea of why the author’s line of thinking is married to that specific time frame? Because I don’t feel too biased in saying it must be rooted well outside the text.
    You're still young. There's no reason why you couldn't learn if you wanted to.

  14. #14

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Do you have an idea of why the authorís line of thinking is married to that specific time frame?
    The short answer would be that he accepts the academic consensus (which Iíll return to), but one might wonder why a Southern Baptist seeking publication in a Catholic theological journal would feel the need to adhere to historical-critical methodology which a priori excludes supernatural explanations. In my experience, this is typical despite most biblical scholars self-identifying as religious Christians. Iím used to working with these texts as historical documents, because I work as an archaeologist at southern Levantine sites from the biblical period. One of the excavations I work on is cosponsored by the theology department at Heidelberg University, and their faculty and students work with us, as do many from among the clergy of various denominations who maintain a presence in Jerusalem. So I have some sense of their outlook, and it revolves around a layered approach to exegesis that seeks to disentangle history from allegory using the historical method. For example, the actions of a historical person may simply be a product of free will, whereas the actions of a fictional (or fictionalized) character may be meant to convey a specific moral message. Some maintain the view that revelation can exist within a text distinct from the conscious intent of the person who wrote it, so that revelation exists as a layer upon the historical explanation.

    Regarding the reason for the academic consensus, the Book of Daniel is set in the Sixth Century BCE, but is believed to have been mostly written in early Second Century BCE. One reason, is because the author isnít particularly familiar with the Sixth Century BCE. Iím going to resort to quoting the Wikipedia, because Iím kind of short on time this week:

    The story of Belshazzar's feast is historical fiction, and several details are not consistent with historical facts.[6][7] Belshazzar is portrayed as the king of Babylon and "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, though he was actually the son of Nabonidusóone of Nebuchadnezzar's successorsóand he never became king in his own right. In the story, the conqueror who inherits Babylon is Darius the Mede, but no such individual is known to history, and the invaders were actually Persians.[7] This is typical of the "tale of court contest" in which historical accuracy is not an essential element.[21]
    Belshazzar

    Another reason is historical linguistic. Several of the chapters are written in Aramaic that appears to be younger than the Aramaic in the Book of Ezra. The Book of Daniel also contains Persian and Greek loanwords. Persian loanwords are unlikely to appear in texts before the Achaemenid period, and Greek loanwords are unlikely to appear before Alexanders conquests.

    More from the Book of Daniel entry:

    Historical Background

    The visions of chapters 7Ė12 reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167Ė164 BC when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem.[24] When Antiochus came to the throne in 175 BC the Jews were largely pro-Seleucid. The High Priestly family was split by rivalry, and one member, Jason, offered the king a large sum to be made High Priest. Jason also askedóor more accurately, paidóto be allowed to make Jerusalem a polis, or Greek city. This meant, among other things, that city government would be in the hands of the citizens, which meant in turn that citizenship would be a valuable commodity, to be purchased from Jason. None of this threatened the Jewish religion, and the reforms were widely welcomed, especially among the Jerusalem aristocracy and the leading priests. Three years later Jason was deposed when another priest, Menelaus, offered Antiochus an even larger sum for the post of High Priest.[25]

    Antiochus invaded Egypt twice, in 169 BC with success, but on the second incursion, in late 168 BC, he was forced to withdraw by the Romans.[26] Jason, hearing a rumour that Antiochus was dead, attacked Menelaus to take back the High Priesthood.[26] Antiochus drove Jason out of Jerusalem, plundered the Temple, and introduced measures to pacify his Egyptian border by imposing complete Hellenisation: the Jewish Book of the Law was prohibited and on 15 December 167 BC an "abomination of desolation", probably a Greek altar, was introduced into the Temple.[27] With the Jewish religion now clearly under threat a resistance movement sprang up, led by the Maccabee brothers, and over the next three years it won sufficient victories over Antiochus to take back and purify the Temple.[26]

    The crisis which the author of Daniel addresses is the defilement of the altar in Jerusalem in 167 BC (first introduced in chapter 8:11): the daily offering which used to take place twice a day, at morning and evening, stopped, and the phrase "evenings and mornings" recurs through the following chapters as a reminder of the missed sacrifices.[28] But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 BC and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate, the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40Ė43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44Ė45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia).[29] The obvious conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167Ė163 BCE.[30][31]

    Composition

    Development


    It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[32] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second century BC.[33] Chapter 1 was composed (in Aramaic) at this time as a brief introduction of to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon.[34] The visions of chapters 7Ė12 were added and chapter 1 translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn together.[34]

    Authorship

    Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous.[35] The stories of the first half are considered legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).[5]

    Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1Ė6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7Ė12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10.[36] The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. The book is a product of "Wisdom" circles, but the type of wisdom is mantic (the discovery of heavenly secrets from earthly signs) rather than the wisdom of learningóthe main source of wisdom in Daniel is God's revelation.[37][38]

    It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.[39] Ezekiel, who lived during the Babylonian exile, mentioned him in association with Noah and Job (Ezekiel 14:14) as a figure of legendary wisdom (28:3), and a hero named Daniel (more accurately Dan'el, but the spelling is close enough for the two to be regarded as identical) features in a late 2nd millennium myth from Ugarit.[40] "The legendary Daniel, known from long ago but still remembered as an exemplary character ... serves as the principal human 'hero' in the biblical book that now bears his name"; Daniel is the wise and righteous intermediary who is able to interpret dreams and thus convey the will of God to humans, the recipient of visions from on high that are interpreted to him by heavenly intermediaries.[41]

    Dating

    The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10Ė12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[42]

    Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[43]
    You will find that with each of these points, some picking can be done at them, so that the earlier date could seem plausible. For example, one could argue that some of the historical mistakes were due to later editing or argue that maybe the loanwords were acquired from Greek merchants who traveled to Babylon. Although the bulk of the evidence points in the direction the academic consensus has arrived at.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  15. #15
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz
    Regarding the reason for the academic consensus, the Book of Daniel is set in the Sixth Century BCE, but is believed to have been mostly written in early Second Century BCE. One reason, is because the author isn’t particularly familiar with the Sixth Century BCE. I’m going to resort to quoting the Wikipedia, because I’m kind of short on time this week:
    The story of Belshazzar's feast is historical fiction, and several details are not consistent with historical facts.[6][7] Belshazzar is portrayed as the king of Babylon and "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, though he was actually the son of Nabonidus—one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors—and he never became king in his own right. In the story, the conqueror who inherits Babylon is Darius the Mede, but no such individual is known to history, and the invaders were actually Persians.[7] This is typical of the "tale of court contest" in which historical accuracy is not an essential element.[21]
    It doesn't appear the traditional interpretation is married to perceived inconsitencies. I found a couple examples of a Christian theological approximation of the timeline based on the text that has Nabonidus appointing his son Belshazzar co-regent of Babylonia. Daniel interprets the writing on the wall some time after that, prior to the overthrow of the Babylonians by the Medo-Persians.

    http://biblepgs.com/Daniel%20Timeline.pdf
    http://www.granbychurchofchrist.org/...e/timeline.htm
    https://4truthministry.com/future/da...onological.php

    The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[42]

    Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[43]
    It seems universally acknowledged that the text doesn't quite fit with Antiochus IV. I understand secular perspectives are trying to find where the text fits consensus, not the other way around. However, I'm unsure why a Christian theological perspective would do this under the assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative. Jesus was known to discuss prophecy, and referenced Daniel directly in the context of the coming destruction of the Temple and his own role in the great controversy.

    Mark 13

    And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

    2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

    4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

    5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

    6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

    7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

    8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

    9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

    10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

    11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

    12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

    13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

    15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:

    16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

    17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

    18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

    19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

    20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

    21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

    22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

    23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

    24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

    25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

    26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

    27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

    28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

    29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

    30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

    31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

    32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

    34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

    35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

    36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

    37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

    Jesus is here recorded as reminding his audience to recall the writings of Daniel, which his audience presumably would be aware of. He clearly indicates these events had not taken place yet (Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another...) The reference is also quite specific, and the same speech is recorded in Matthew Chapter 24.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark 13:14
    But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew 24:15-16
    When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 9:27
    And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 11:31
    1 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 12:11
    And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
    This "abomination that maketh desolate" seems to be the same words in all three places in Daniel, שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם .

    The Greek words equated to "abomination" and "desolation" are the same in all five examples here: abomination- βδέλυγμα , desolation - ερημώσεως .

    Again, for the sake of clarity, I'm relying on Strong's Concordance. Do you know of additional context with this phrase?

  16. #16

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    This "abomination that maketh desolate" seems to be the same words in all three places in Daniel, שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם .

    The Greek words equated to "abomination" and "desolation" are the same in all five examples here: abomination- βδέλυγμα , desolation - ερημώσεως .

    Again, for the sake of clarity, I'm relying on Strong's Concordance. Do you know of additional context with this phrase?
    I'm fairly certain those two words don't occur together elsewhere in the biblical text like that. Although, each of those three occurrences in Daniel are bit different from each other.

    Daniel 9:27
    וְעַ֨ל כְּנַ֤ף שִׁקּוּצִים֙ מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם
    wəᶜal kənap̄ öiqqūṣÓm məöōmÍm
    "and on the wing of abominations that cause devastations"

    It's plural here. Either "devastate" or "desolate" works. There is a causal relationship because of the Piel conjugation of the verb, "abominations that maketh desolate", "abominations who desolate", "abominations that desolate" all work. That "wing" part could also be "skirt" or "kilt". I mention it because it doesn't show up in a lot of translations, but it's there.

    Daniel 11:31
    הַשִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשׁוֹמֵֽם
    haööiqqūṣ məöōwmÍm
    "the abomination that causes devastations"

    It's singular here with a definite article, but "causes devastations" is still plural. The verb is spelled differently here because it is in the Polel conjugation, but the two conjugations can express the same meaning.

    Daniel 12:11
    שִׁקּ֣וּץ שֹׁמֵ֑ם
    öiqqūṣ öōmÍm
    "abomination of devastation"

    Both words are singular here, with no definite article. This uses the Qal conjugation, so it doesn't explicitly indicate causality, but can still be translated as a participle like "devastating abomination" or "desolating abomination".

    A note about the word translated as "abomination", the verbal root ö-q-ṣ (ש-ק-ץ) means "to contaminate" or "to make repugnant". In some conjugations, it's "to spurn" or "to scorn" presumably because something is repugnant. Not sure if it adds any insight, but for some reason the Akkadian cognate means "to stare menacingly" or "to be brutal".

    The noun often shows up in laws about ritual purity and in passages like this:

    "The king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the Mount of Destruction, which King Solomon of Israel had built for Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." (2 Kings 23:13)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #17
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I'm fairly certain those two words don't occur together elsewhere in the biblical text like that. Although, each of those three occurrences in Daniel are bit different from each other.

    Daniel 9:27
    וְעַ֨ל כְּנַ֤ף שִׁקּוּצִים֙ מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם
    wəᶜal kənap̄ šiqqūṣÓm məšōmÍm
    "and on the wing of abominations that cause devastations"

    It's plural here. Either "devastate" or "desolate" works. There is a causal relationship because of the Piel conjugation of the verb, "abominations that maketh desolate", "abominations who desolate", "abominations that desolate" all work. That "wing" part could also be "skirt" or "kilt". I mention it because it doesn't show up in a lot of translations, but it's there.

    Daniel 11:31
    הַשִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשׁוֹמֵֽם
    haššiqqūṣ məšōwmÍm
    "the abomination that causes devastations"

    It's singular here with a definite article, but "causes devastations" is still plural. The verb is spelled differently here because it is in the Polel conjugation, but the two conjugations can express the same meaning.

    Daniel 12:11
    שִׁקּ֣וּץ שֹׁמֵ֑ם
    šiqqūṣ šōmÍm
    "abomination of devastation"

    Both words are singular here, with no definite article. This uses the Qal conjugation, so it doesn't explicitly indicate causality, but can still be translated as a participle like "devastating abomination" or "desolating abomination".

    A note about the word translated as "abomination", the verbal root š-q-ṣ (ש-ק-ץ) means "to contaminate" or "to make repugnant". In some conjugations, it's "to spurn" or "to scorn" presumably because something is repugnant. Not sure if it adds any insight, but for some reason the Akkadian cognate means "to stare menacingly" or "to be brutal".

    The noun often shows up in laws about ritual purity and in passages like this:

    "The king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the Mount of Destruction, which King Solomon of Israel had built for Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." (2 Kings 23:13)
    Sorry it took me a while to circle back to this. As ever, there's a lot to unpack cross-referencing between different chapters at this point.

    The divergence between the critical and traditional narratives on the events covered in these three verses appear to hinge on the point which was discussed earlier; one of timing the chronology. The respective umbrellas do appeear to converge on the premise that Daniel 11-12 are describing actual historical events, where the traditional view is prophetic, and the critical view is historical.

    Daniel 11-12

    Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

    2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

    3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

    4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

    5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

    6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

    7 But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

    8 And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.

    9 So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

    10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

    11 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

    12 And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

    13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

    14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

    15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

    16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

    17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

    18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

    19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

    20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

    21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

    22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

    23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

    24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

    25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

    26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

    27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

    28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

    29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

    30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

    32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

    33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

    34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

    35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

    36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

    37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

    38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

    39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

    40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

    41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

    42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

    43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

    44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

    45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

    12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

    2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

    4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

    5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

    6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

    7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

    8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

    9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

    10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

    11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

    12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

    13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

    The critical view as offered by Redditt (thank you for the link) suggests he recognizes the connection between Daniel 9:25-27 and 11:21-22. Also, both the critical and traditional perspectives place the historical time frame for Daniel 11-12 as during the Hellenic kingdoms (as far as I know?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 11 and the Sociohistorical Setting of the Book of Daniel; Redditt
    What more can one say about this group of Judeans in the diaspora? A clue lies in the observation of U. Rapapport that in Daniel 11 detalis in Greek history are reported which are not reported in other extant Jewish literature from that time (...). The difference between those books and the Book of Daniel seems to lie in Daniel's interest in Seleucid and Ptolomaic affairs, not simply in the relations of those kingdoms with Judah. Rappaport, noting that the details are reported not in a straightforward manner but in a disguised or coded form, suggests that the author may have either adopted an already existing narrative of those events, integrating it into his vision, or have assembled the sequence from Greek soruces, molding it into his vision. Either way, his contemporaries showed very little interest in many of those events. For the most part, the text was understood as a prediction of the future, not as a memory of the past.

    [Footnote 32]One need only compare Josephus (...) written, apparently, with Dan 9:24-27 in mind:
    Based on a secular, historical perspective the critical view sees history (Antiochus IV), where based on a textual, chronological perspective, the traditional view sees prophecy (Jesus). I find this to be the point of divergence between the two, in Chapter 11-12 as in 9. This differential is more than just epistemological, I think, based on the commonality of the text pointing to actual, historical events, one way or the other.
    Preterists miss the indicators of Christ, interpreting the “anointed one”
    in 9:26 and the “prince of the covenant” in 11:22 as the Jewish high priest
    Onias III, who was removed from office and then murdered in about 171
    B.C. during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as
    recorded in 2 Macc 4.44 However, this event was not after 69 weeks of years
    following the word/decree to restore and build Jerusalem, and Onias did not make a strong covenant with many.45 Having misidentified the person in
    Dan 11:22, the preterists are off-target in their interpretation of the
    remainder of this chapter, which they see as mainly fulfilled in the period
    of Antiochus IV.46

    The interpretation of Dan 11 by evangelical scholar Tremper Longman III is mainly
    preterist, but in vv. 36-45 he sees “references to Antiochus Epiphanes taking on larger than
    life characteristics, which we, living in the light of the New Testament, might describe as
    anticipatory of a figure called the Antichrist”
    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...7&context=jats
    What can be derived from the text, then? One will recall that it doesn't necessarily fit Antiochus IV:

    On the Critical View and Antiochus IV

    Chronological Interpretations Terminating in Maccabean Times" are advanced and supported by Historical-Critical interpreters. A basic conviction of Historical-Critical scholars is the view that the prophecy of Dan 9:24-27 is a vaticinia ex eventu.1

    While Historical-Critical scholars generally take the prophecy as non- Messianic, some deviate from the general attempt to compute the figures in Dan 9:24-27 (i.e., 7+62+1) into a single horizontal line of historical-chronological sequence. Such scholars do not follow the general view of computation. They posit that the Seventy Weeks were not meant to be computed with exact arithmetic chronological significance."1 Among the reasons for this is the fact that the 490 years cannot be made to tit a strict sequence which concludes with Antiochus Epiphanes.

    Historical-Critical interpreters, however, generally agree on a Maccabean time terminus ad quem while the terminus a quo is variously based on the Jeremianic word of either Jer 25:2 or 29:10. They insist that the athnach under sibcah (i.e.. after the words "seven weeks”) is completely disjunctive, which brings the appearance of "Messiah, the Prince" at the end of the first seven weeks. The "Prince who shall come" (vs. 26b) is accordingly identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. who is said to make a covenant with the Jews (vs. 27a).

    The chronological interpretations terminating in Maccabean times have failed to achieve any chronological harmony based on the text of either Jeremiah or Daniel. The following are major problems that have emerged from Maccabean- based interpretations:

    1. Diverse dates, such as 606, 605. 594. 586. and 587 B.C.. are used by the Historical-Critical school for the terminus a quo of the Seventy Weeks. They do not provide sufficient sequential time to fit a total cf 490 years into their computation that terminates with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Their appeal to supposed inaccuracies in the chronological data in Dan 9:24-27 does not seem to provide adequate solutions to the chronological problems of the Historical-Critical interpreters.

    2. Textual issues that affect chronological determinations which called for clarifications include the following: (a) the attachment of the person designated "Messiah, the Prince" to the first seven weeks, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem over a period of sixty-two weeks (434 years), (b) the attribution of the destruction of the city of Dan 9 to the period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. who is not known to have destroyed Jerusalem, and (c) the Seventy Weeks (vss. 26-27) do not seem to end with a restoration and purification of the temple as suggested by the Historical- Critical interpretation.

    Even so, recognizing the arrival of the king of the north as a point of transition, his actions against the "prince of the covenant" ( נָגִידבְּרִית "nagiyd beriyth" 9:26-27;11:22 ) offer a key clue as to the historical timing. Based on the above difference in interpretation, the traditional perspective arrives at Rome being the king of the north, whereas the secular perspective arrives at the Seleucids. The only major caveat to that, to my knowledge, is traditional Evangelical Christians who believe Antiochus IV to be a metaphor for a future antichrist figure. This caveat resorts to speculation for the remainder of the chapter, however, departing from the critical view in order to do so. It's worth noting that Reddit seems to agree on the prophetic tense, nonetheless, and describes the downfall of Antiochus as a critical rationale here on page 471-2 of his article referenced above.
    The events of 11:36-45 do not fit Antiochus Epiphanes. The
    leading alternative to the view that the temporal setting of this
    passage is eschatological is that it is a continued description of the
    career of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 11:21-35). The pagan historian
    Porphyry is usually cited in order to justify this proposal historically,
    but E. J. Young, Robert Dick Wilson, H. C. Leupold, and John F.
    Walvoord have all given scholarly and convincing refutations of this
    attempt.8
    http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_...-Dan11-GTJ.pdf
    In addition, the premise offered by the 70 Week Prophecy gives context not only to the prince of the covenant, but also to the king of the north's activities in 11:31.
    During his ministry on earth, followed by initiation of his priestly
    ministry in God’s heavenly temple (Heb 7-10), Christ established the “new
    covenant” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 8:6-13; 9:15; 12:24; cf. Jer 31:31-
    34). So he fits the profile of “the prince of the covenant” in Dan 11:22, who
    was “broken,” i.e., died, during the time of domination by imperial Rome,
    before which armies were “utterly swept away.”42 This parallels 9:26-27,
    where the “anointed one” (māšÓaH) = Messiah, i.e., Christ, makes a
    covenant to be strong for many and is “cut off,” and Jerusalem and its
    temple are destroyed. Therefore, following the Hellenistic kingdoms in
    11:5-19, vv. 20-22 transition to the period of imperial Rome.43

    Daniel 11:31 predicts that forces from the king of the north would
    profane “the temple, the fortress” (NJPS) remove the tāmÓd, “that which is
    regular,” i.e., regular worship of God by his people, and set up the
    abomination that makes desolate. The same unusual usage of tāmÓd by itself
    with the definite article occurs in 8:11, where a power symbolized by a
    “little horn” magnifies itself up to “the Prince of the host” and takes the
    tāmÓd away from him (the Prince),47 “and the place of his sanctuary was
    overthrown.” This is clearly the same event as in 11:31, so the king of the
    north and the “little horn” power are the same. A further correlation is the
    fact that in 11:31, forces from the king of the north “shall set up the
    abomination that makes desolate” and in 8:13, the “little horn” power is
    responsible for “the transgression that makes desolate.”

    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...7&context=jats
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 9:27
    And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 11:31
    And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 12:8-13
    And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

    9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

    10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

    11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

    12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

    13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
    Venturing beyond the commonality of שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם , some traditional perspectives appear to wed critical and traditional anaylsis based on Antiochus IV to suggest that Rome, not Seleucia, is nonetheless the king of the north:

    ANTIOCHUS AND ANTICHRIST REVISITED

    The king of the North … shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army: The angel told Daniel that the northern dynasty would answer back and defeat the king of the South in an extended siege. This victory will give the king of the North dominion over the Glorious Land.

    i. "The land of ornaments - that is, Judea, which, lying betwixt these two potent princes, was perpetually afflicted, as corn is ground asunder lying betwixt two heavy millstones." (Trapp)

    b. This was fulfilled when Antiochus III invaded Egypt again, gaining final control over the armies of Ptolemy V and over the Holy Land.

    He shall act deceitfully: The angel tells Daniel that the new king of the North (the vile person of Daniel 11:21) will attempt a deceitful covenant with the king of the South. This will fail, and there will be a great battle that will not change the balance of power.

    b. This was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes carried on the feud between the dynasties but pretended friendship and alliance to catch them off guard. Despite massive efforts and epic battles, Antiochus Epiphanes did not stand, and his army was swept away.

    i. The defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes at his second campaign against Egypt was important, because Egypt beat Antiochus with the help of Rome. At the end of it all, Antiochus Epiphanes and his kingdom were under the dominion of Rome.

    ii. In a famous battle, the Roman Navy defeated the navy of Antiochus Epiphanes. After the battle, a Roman general drew a circle around Antiochus in the dirt and demanded to know if he would surrender and pay tribute to Rome - and demanded to know before he stepped out of the circle. From then on, there was no doubt: Antiochus Epiphanes took his orders from Rome and was under Roman dominion.

    His heart shall be moved against the holy covenant: When the vile person returns to his land he will attack the land, people, and the temple of Israel. It will be a time of great courage and great treachery among the people of God.

    b. This was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Egypt, bitter from defeat. He vented his anger against Jerusalem, which was already reeling because Antiochus sold the office of High Priest and persecuted the Jewish people to conform to Greek culture, forsaking the faith and traditions of their fathers.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...Dan/Dan_11.cfm

    Thus both the critical and some traditional perspectives appear to arrive at Antiochus IV as this antichrist figure from Daniel 9 and 11-12, a king of the north who brings שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם , "abomination that maketh desolate." Nonetheless, these perspectives are confronted by the recognized prophetic tense, suggesting perhaps the downfall of Antiochus IV in the future as Redditt mentions, or a future "world dictator" in some Evangelical Christian circles.

    Turning again to the text, there is a futuristic shift that is, as far as I know, universally recognized. I found a Jewish perspective that recognizes this pointing to Rome as the king of the north who brings שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם . Do you happen to hvae any additional perspective on that? Google wasn't helpful.

    Rome as the King of the North

    In his commentary on Daniel titled Yafeh La-Ketz, Malbim (MeÔr Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Weiser, 1809-1879), who had access to an additional four centuries of historical scholarship, improved upon Abarbanel’s reading. Malbim is aware of the connection between Daniel 11 and the Antiochian persecution, and his comment on 11:30 offers insight into the reason Daniel and Chanukah are not connected in Jewish consciousness:

    Up to this point has been the story of the evil king Antiochus. The text here does not tell the end of the story, how the Hasmoneans were victorious… For in this vision Daniel only wanted to relate the troubles that would befall Israel, not their salvations through Mattathias. For in any case, that was for a brief period, followed by the arrival of Romans. Rather, the text turns to the troubles and destruction wrought by the Romans

    https://www.thetorah.com/article/cha...11-and-history
    The Antichrist: the "last days Antiochus Epiphanes."

    1. (Dan 11:36) "The willful king": a shift to a future fulfillment.

    Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

    a. He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god: The angel explained to Daniel that this king will blaspheme God and exalt himself until the wrath has been accomplished and what has been determined shall be done.

    b. Here we shift from what was fulfilled in the Ptolemies and the Selucids to what will be fulfilled in the Antichrist, the final world dictator. Daniel was told that this revelation pertained to the latter days (Daniel 10:14), and Daniel 11:36 begins to look more towards this final world dictator, who is sort of a "last days Antiochus Epiphanes."
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...Dan/Dan_11.cfm
    Some traditional views appear to resolve the temporal issue in the context of verses from Daniel 7-8 to suggest a continuation of Roman power as the king of the north under the papacy, though it does involve some assumptions made as to the literal destruction of the temple in 70 AD versus a metaphorical destruction, in either case, by the king of the north:
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 11
    For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

    32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

    33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

    34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

    35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

    36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

    37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

    38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

    39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
    Spoiler for Papal Rome as the King of the North

    Verse 31 says that forces from the king of the north = church of Rome
    will profane “the temple, the fortress,” remove “that which is regular,” and
    “set up the abomination that makes desolate.” These actions obviously
    concern religion, but the language is not symbolic. The “abomination” is
    literally an abomination (cf. 9:27). Neither is “the temple” symbolic. As
    pointed out earlier, this verse parallels 8:11, where the “little horn” power,
    symbolizing the Roman church, takes away “that which is regular,” i.e.,
    literal regular worship, from the Prince of the host = Christ “and the place
    of his temple was overthrown.” This is the same temple that is justified after
    2,300 “evening-morning” in 8:14. It cannot be the temple in Jerusalem,
    which the Romans destroyed in A.D. 70, centuries before the rise of the
    Roman church to religious domination. So it must be the heavenly temple,
    where Christ ministers during the Christian era (cf. Heb 7-10), and “that
    which is regular” is worship connected with it.81 It is doubtful that Daniel
    understood this (or in Dan 8:11), so he likely thought of the earthly temple,
    which was the type of the heavenly antitype. But within the context of the
    prophetic narrative in Dan 11, the temple (miqdāš) in v. 31 is the heavenly
    temple itself, not something else that represents it,82 so it is not really
    symbolic.83 Just because a term refers to something in heaven does not
    make it symbolic.84

    Daniel 11:31 says that forces from the earthly king of the north would
    profane the (heavenly) temple and remove regular worship connected with
    it. How could they do that? Regular worship is carried out by people on
    earth, so it can be disrupted by an earthly power.85 God’s temple can be
    negatively affected from a distance (cf. 8:11), just as the ancient Israelite
    sanctuary, where God placed his name (e.g., Deut 12:5), involving his
    reputation on earth (e.g., Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, 39, 44), could be polluted from
    a distance by idolatry: “to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my
    holy name” (Lev 20:3).86

    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...7&context=jats


    As the interpretations become more varied the deeper into the text one goes, the importance of Daniel's Seventy Weeks Prophecy and its chronology to the traditional perspective is revealed.

  18. #18

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    That's a good overview...

    Regarding this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Turning again to the text, there is a futuristic shift that is, as far as I know, universally recognized. I found a Jewish perspective that recognizes this pointing to Rome as the king of the north who brings שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם . Do you happen to hvae any additional perspective on that? Google wasn't helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan Hoffman
    In his commentary on Daniel titled Yafeh La-Ketz, Malbim (MeÔr Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Weiser, 1809-1879), who had access to an additional four centuries of historical scholarship, improved upon Abarbanel’s reading. Malbim is aware of the connection between Daniel 11 and the Antiochian persecution, and his comment on 11:30 offers insight into the reason Daniel and Chanukah are not connected in Jewish consciousness:

    Quote Originally Posted by Malbim
    Up to this point has been the story of the evil king Antiochus. The text here does not tell the end of the story, how the Hasmoneans were victorious… For in this vision Daniel only wanted to relate the troubles that would befall Israel, not their salvations through Mattathias. For in any case, that was for a brief period, followed by the arrival of Romans. Rather, the text turns to the troubles and destruction wrought by the Romans
    https://www.thetorah.com/article/cha...11-and-history
    It would make sense that many Jews would have interpreted it that way in the context of the Jewish-Roman Wars in light of the parallels between their situation and the Maccabean Revolt. That same link gives some indication as to why there is much less discussion along those lines in the Rabbinic literature:

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan Hoffman
    Daniel as a Prophet

    During the Temple and immediate post-Temple eras, Daniel was regarded as a prophet. This is evident both in the Midrash of the Last Days found at Qumran (4Q174), and the New Testament (Matthew 24:15). In early rabbinic literature, especially those sources written in the Land of Israel, Daniel is listed among the prophets of the Babylonian captivity.[6] Josephus wrote at length about the greatness of Daniel’s prophecies:

    Quote Originally Posted by Josephus
    He did not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment… He also wrote and left behind him what made manifest the accuracy and undeniable veracity of his predictions (Antiquities 11, 11, 7).
    But if Daniel was a prophet, why is the Book of Daniel placed within Ketuvim, not Nevi’im (b. Baba Batra 14b)?

    A) Daniel Used to be in the Prophets

    Klaus Koch suggests that Daniel originally was canonized as part of Nevi’im but was later relegated to Ketuvim as a way of downplaying apocalyptic literature in the aftermath of failed rebellions against Rome.[7] Support for this theory is adduced from Daniel’s position in Nevi’im in the Septuagint, and from the fact that the rabbis of Amoraic period soured on Daniel, claimed that he was not a prophet (b. Megillah 3a), and maintained that he was punished for wrongdoing (b. Baba Batra 4a).

    B) Daniel was always Part of Ketuvim

    Rivka Raviv, however, has argued—convincingly in my view—that Daniel originally was positioned in Ketuvim.[8] Daniel 9:2 speaks of “the books,” meaning “scripture,” and refers specifically the Book of Jeremiah. Assuming a second century B.C.E. dating for Daniel, the book could not enter Nevi’im because that section of the Bible already was closed.[9] Raviv believes that the negative attitude of the Babylonian Amoraim toward Daniel was part of their agenda of stopping those who would speculate about the date of the redemption (b.Sanhedrin 97b).
    The Amoraim were the Rabbinic scholars in the period from 200 to 500 CE. I'm sure everyone here knows the Jewish revolts against Rome didn't end so well for the Jews, and as a consequence of that trauma, Rabbinic Judaism downplayed anything that could be interpreted as an imminent apocalyptic battle between the forces of light and darkness. Destruction and exile in the Roman period was seen as a punishment from God, which forced a rethinking of Messianic visions. So Daniel became more important as a Jew who thrived in the diaspora while maintaining adherence to Halakhah.

    Although, the Septuagint version of Daniel 11:30 translates kittÓm as Ῥωμαῖοι (Romans). The word initially meant Cyprus, and that could be the intent of the original text, but at some point the word started to be used more broadly, first being applied to Greeks and then to Romans and/or Greeks. For example: “After Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came from the land of Kittim, had defeated King Darius of the Persians and the Medes, he succeeded him as king.” (1 Maccabees 1:1). Whatever the original intent, the LXX translation indicates that at least some Jews in the First Century BCE understood it as "ships of the Romans" opposing the King of the North.

    It's been suggested that 11:30 refers to an envoy sent by Gaius Popillius Laenas or the events described in Livy 45.11. The former view actually goes back to Porphyry of Tyre's polemic "Against the Christians", written in the Third Century CE (preserved in Jerome's commentary on Daniel):

    Quote Originally Posted by Porphyry
    The histories of Greece and Rome relate that when Antiochus returned after being expelled by the Egyptians, he came to Judaea . . . and plundered the temple and took away a vast amount of gold. After placing a garrison of Macedonians in the citadel, he returned to his own country. [Two years later] he again gathered an army against Ptolemy, and invaded the South. While the two Ptolemy brothers, the sons of Cleopatra and nephews of Antiochus, were being besieged in Alexandria, some Roman envoys arrived. One of the envoys, Marcus Popilius Laenas, met Antiochus by the shore and handed him the senatus consultum, in which Antiochus was ordered to withdraw from the territory of the friends of the Roman people and to be content with his own kingdom. When Antiochus tried to defer a reply until he had consulted with his friends, Popilius is said to have drawn a circle round him with the stick which he was carrying and to have said, "The Roman people tell you to make a decision and reply within this space". Alarmed by this statement, the king said, "If this is what the Roman senate and people wish, I must withdraw"; and so he immediately led away his army. He is described as "struck down", not because he died, but because he lost all his extreme arrogance.
    To which Jerome adds:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome
    But these events were typically prefigured under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that this abominable king who persecuted God's people foreshadows the Antichrist, who is to persecute the people of Christ. And so there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity.
    Shortly thereafter he writes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerome
    But those of the other viewpoint claim that the persons mentioned are those who were sent by Antiochus two years after he had plundered the Temple in order to exact tribute from the Jews, and also to eliminate the worship of God, setting up an image of Jupiter Olympius in the Temple at Jerusalem, and also statues of Antiochus himself. These are described as the abomination of desolation, having been set up when the burnt offering and continual sacrifice were taken away. But we on our side contend that all these things took place in a preliminary way as a mere type of the Antichrist, who is destined to seat himself in the Temple of God, and make himself out to be as God. The Jews, however, would have us understand these things as referring, not to Antiochus Epiphanes or the Antichrist, but to the Romans, of whom it was earlier stated, "And war galleys shall come," whether Italian or Roman, "and he shall be humbled." Considerably later, says the text, a king, Vespasian, shall emerge from the Romans themselves, who had come to Ptolemy's assistance and threatened Antiochus. It is his arms or descendants who would rise up, namely his son Titus, who with his army would defile the sanctuary and remove the continual sacrifice and devote the temple to permanent desolation.
    I imagine that could have easily been a widely held Jewish interpretation in his day, although he goes on to say that Jews would have understood the word ṣÓyÓm for "ships" as Italians, which I think is probably nonsense. It's a loanword from Coptic that refers to the river going ships in the Nile. Context suggests it could also refer to galleys.
    Last edited by sumskilz; September 01, 2020 at 08:53 AM. Reason: fixed link
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  19. #19
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,747

    Default Re: The Biblical Case for Danielís Seventy Weeks: Christ or Antichrist?

    Ah that is interesting, thank you for that perspective. The reason I say so is it's compelling to me this Seleucid vs Rome debate seems to have impacted the Jewish conversation as well. There is a third piece of the puzzle, looking back to chapters 7-8, that I think necessarily completes the picture, one way or the other:

    Daniel 7-8

    In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.

    2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.

    3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

    4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

    5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

    6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

    7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

    8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

    9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

    10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

    11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

    12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

    13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

    14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

    15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

    16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

    17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

    18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

    19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

    20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

    21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

    22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

    23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

    24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

    25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

    26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

    27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

    28 Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

    In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.

    2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

    3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

    4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

    5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.

    6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.

    7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

    8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

    9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

    10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

    11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

    12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

    13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

    15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

    16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

    17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

    18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.

    19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

    20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

    21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

    22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

    23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

    24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

    25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

    26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

    27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

    The handy guide in chapter 8 grants a high degree of consensus on interpretation, up to a point, which I'll summarize this way:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I thought this chart was pretty clear and to the best of my knowledge, is in line with consensus. I couldn't find a good critical analysis of this, so I'll use the specifically Roman Catholic one in its place, since the conclusion (Antiochus IV) matches critical consensus thus far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roman Catholic View
    * [7:1–27] This vision continues the motif of the four kingdoms from chap. 2; see note on 2:36–45. To the four succeeding world kingdoms, Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek, is opposed the heavenly kingdom of God and the kingdom of God’s people on earth. The beast imagery of this chapter has been used extensively in the Book of Revelation, where it is applied to the Roman empire, the persecutor of the Church.

    * [7:2] The great sea: the primordial ocean beneath the earth, according to ancient Near Eastern cosmology (Gn 7:11; 49:25). It was thought to contain various monsters (Is 27:1; Jb 7:12), and in particular mythological monsters symbolizing the chaos which God had vanquished in primordial times (Jb 9:13; 26:12; Is 51:9–10; etc.).

    * [7:4] In ancient times the Babylonian empire was commonly represented as a winged lion, in the rampant position (raised up on one side). The two wings that were plucked may represent Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. On two feet like a human being…a human mind: contrasts with what is said in 4:13, 30.

    * [7:5] A bear: represents the Median empire, its three tusks symbolizing its destructive nature; hence, the command: “Arise, devour much flesh.”

    * [7:6] A leopard: used to symbolize the swiftness with which Cyrus the Persian established his kingdom. Four heads: corresponding to the four Persian kings of 11:2.

    * [7:7–8] Alexander’s empire was different from all the others in that it was Western rather than Eastern in inspiration, and far exceeded the others in power. The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), who usurped the throne and persecuted the Jews.

    https://bible.usccb.org/bible/daniel/7?9
    Do you know of any reason to separate the Median and Persian Empires this way, other than the conclusion that the little horn is Antiochus IV? This does seem to be the case, as I can't derive another reason why this interpretation would consider the fourth beast to be Alexander's empire, while the ten horns are to pertain only to Seleucid kings.

    What's fascinating to me about all this is how much there is riding on the Seventy Weeks Prophecy. A traditional view pointing to Jesus as the prince of the covenant provides key insight into alternative explanations for the identity of the beasts:

    Quote Originally Posted by Regarding the Prince of the Covenant, the King of the North, and the Fourth Beast
    In 11:22, “the prince of the covenant” is “broken” when a king of the
    north is exceedingly powerful, so that armies are “utterly swept away before
    him.” This correlates with 9:25-27, where “an anointed one, a prince” who
    “shall make a strong covenant with many for one week” is “cut off” after
    “seven weeks” plus “sixty-two weeks” following “the going out of the word
    to restore and build Jerusalem.” The Hebrew word for “weeks” (pl. of
    šābŻa‘) here can refer to a weeks of days or a weeks of year, and weeks of
    years fits this context38 because the events predicted here clearly take much
    longer than 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of days (= 483 days). The going out of the
    word to restore and build Jerusalem, which refers to restoring the city to
    control by the Jews after the Babylonian exile so that they could rebuild it,39
    occurred in 457 B.C. when the decree of Artaxerxes I went into effect in the
    seventh year (458-457 B.C.) of his reign (Ezra 7).40 Sixty-nine weeks of
    years = 483 years after that, Christ was baptized and anointed by the Holy
    Spirit (Luke 3:21-22; cf. 4:18; Acts 10:37-38) in “the fifteenth year of the
    reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1), i.e., in about A.D. 27.

    During his ministry on earth, followed by initiation of his priestly
    ministry in God’s heavenly temple (Heb 7-10), Christ established the “new
    covenant” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 8:6-13; 9:15; 12:24; cf. Jer 31:31-
    34). So he fits the profile of “the prince of the covenant” in Dan 11:22, who
    was “broken,” i.e., died, during the time of domination by imperial Rome,
    before which armies were “utterly swept away.”42 This parallels 9:26-27,
    where the “anointed one” (māšÓaH) = Messiah, i.e., Christ, makes a
    covenant to be strong for many and is “cut off,” and Jerusalem and its
    temple are destroyed. Therefore, following the Hellenistic kingdoms in
    11:5-19, vv. 20-22 transition to the period of imperial Rome.43
    Preterists miss the indicators of Christ, interpreting the “anointed one”
    in 9:26 and the “prince of the covenant” in 11:22 as the Jewish high priest
    Onias III, who was removed from office and then murdered in about 171
    B.C. during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as
    recorded in 2 Macc 4.44 However, this event was not after 69 weeks of years
    following the word/decree to restore and build Jerusalem, and Onias did not
    make a strong covenant with many.45 Having misidentified the person in
    Dan 11:22, the preterists are off-target in their interpretation of the
    remainder of this chapter, which they see as mainly fulfilled in the period
    of Antiochus IV.46

    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/c...7&context=jats
    Based on the above, there is only one traditional interpretation I could find that fits all the pieces together thus far in a consistent manner.

    Four Beasts, Four Distinct Powers

    1. As chapter 7 begins, Daniel sees four beasts coming up out of the sea. In prophecy, what does a beast represent? What does the sea represent?
    “The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth” (Daniel 7:23).
    “The waters ... are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues” (Revelation 17:15).

    Answer: A beast represents a kingdom or nation. Water represents multitudes of people or large populations.


    2. The four beasts of Daniel 7 represent four kingdoms (verses 17, 18). Babylon, the first kingdom (Daniel 2:38, 39), is represented as a lion in Daniel 7:4. (See also Jeremiah 4:7; 50:17, 43, 44.) What do the “eagle’s wings” mean? What do the “four winds” of verse 2 represent?
    “The Lord will bring a nation against you ... as swift as the eagle flies” (Deuteronomy 28:49).
    “Says the Lord of hosts: ... a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the farthest parts of the earth. And ... the slain of the Lord shall be from one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth” (Jeremiah 25:32, 33).

    Answer: The wings of eagles represent speed. (See also Jeremiah 4:13; Habakkuk 1:6–8.) Winds represent strife, commotion, and destruction. (See also Revelation 7:1–3.)


    3. What kingdom does the bear represent (Daniel 7:5)? What do the three ribs in its mouth symbolize?
    Answer: Read Daniel 8. Notice that the beasts in chapter 8 parallel those in chapter 7. Daniel 8:20 specifically names Medo-Persia as the kingdom that precedes the male goat—that is, Greece—of verse 21. Medo-Persia is the second kingdom—the same power as the bear of Daniel 7. The empire was made up of two groups of people. The Medes came up first (represented in Daniel 7:5 by the bear raising up on one side), but the Persians eventually became stronger (represented in Daniel 8:3 by the ram’s second horn that grew “higher”). The three ribs represent the three principal powers conquered by Medo-Persia: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.

    4. Greece, the third kingdom (Daniel 8:21), is represented by a leopard with four wings and four heads (Daniel 7:6). What do the wings represent? What do the four heads represent?

    Answer: The four wings (instead of two, as the lion had) represent the incredible speed with which Alexander conquered the region (Jeremiah 4:11–13). The four heads represent the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander the Great was divided when he died. The four generals who headed these areas were Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus.


    5. The Roman Empire, the fourth kingdom, is represented by a powerful monster with iron teeth and 10 horns (Daniel 7:7). What do the horns represent?

    Answer: The 10 horns represent the 10 kings or kingdoms into which pagan Rome was eventually split (Daniel 7:24). (These 10 kingdoms are the same as the 10 toes of the image described in Daniel 2:41–44.) Roving barbarian tribes swept in upon the Roman Empire and carved out land niches for their people. Seven of those 10 tribes developed into the countries of modern Western Europe, while three were “uprooted” and destroyed. The next section will discuss those kingdoms that were rooted up.

    https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-l...he-antichrist-

    So, if one is looking for Antiochus IV, the terminus is guaranteed a priori, and we're pretty much done. However, if the Prince of the Covenant is in fact Jesus, and King of the North/Fourth Beast is Imperial Rome, who or what is this all important Little Horn that subsequently "made war against the saints and prevailed against them?" If we're looking at Imperial Rome as a timeframe, Roman emperors who brutally persecuted Christians of course come to mind. However, the ten horns that sprang from the head of the fourth beast suggest a derivative power or set of powers from Rome. There are a number of very specific characteristics to the Little Horn, and in a Roman context, an entity which still occupies the imperial office of Pontifex Maximus (supreme pontiff):
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel 7:8, 8:20-25
    And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

    21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

    22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

    I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

    23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

    24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

    25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
    What is this blasphemous, Romanesque power that persecutes the saints (meaning Christians, from a Christian perspective), and accordingly thinks for itself to change times and laws? Toward the latter point, I think it's important to first delineate what exactly is "laws:"

    The Law of Moses vs the Law of God

    There are two laws that are made crystal clear in the following verses below. Daniel 9:10 is talking about God's law and verse 11 is talking about Moses' law:
    "Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets."
    "Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him." Daniel 9:10,11

    Special Note: Please note that God's law also called the Ten Commandments or moral law has existed at least as long as sin has existed. The Bible says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression [or sin]." Romans 4:15. So God's Ten Commandment law existed from the beginning. Men broke that law. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4 Because of sin (or breaking God's law), Moses law was given (or "added" Galatians 3:16, 19) till Christ should come and die. Two separate laws involved: God's law or Ten Commandments and Moses law.



    Source: https://preparingforeternity.com/mosevs10.htm

    I've included the above in summary fashion since, to my knowledge, the differentiation between the ten commandments and Mosaic law is a universally recognized Christian concept. Jesus, who famously jousted with the Pharisees over legal concepts, nevertheless clearly indicated the importance of God's commandments:

    Quote Originally Posted by John 14
    Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

    If ye love me, keep my commandments.

    16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Commandments, Exodus 20
    And God spake all these words, saying,

    2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

    6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    13 Thou shalt not kill.

    14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    15 Thou shalt not steal.

    16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

    18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
    Christian history can certainly point to a Romanesque power that made war on the saints, but how is it this Little Horn has prevailed against them, has changed times and laws? There are of course other characteristics of the Little Horn discussed here, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'll focus on that point as it is directly correlative: Who or what sought to change God's times and laws?

    By Whose Authority?

    “Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

    Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”8

    The papacy is here saying that it “changed” Sabbath to Sunday and that virtually all churches accepted the new holy day. Thus, the papacy claims that Sunday as a holy day is the mark, or symbol, of her power and authority.

    8Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism [FRS No. 7.], (3rd American ed., rev.: New York, Edward Dunigan & Bro., 1876), p. 174.

    Baptist: “There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. ... It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week. ... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament—absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual, in a paper read before a New York ministers' conference held Nov. 13, 1893.

    Catholic: “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which [Catholics] never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 93rd edition, 1917, p. 58.

    Church of Christ: “Finally, we have the testimony of Christ on this subject. In Mark 2:27, he says: ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’ From this passage it is evident that the Sabbath was made not merely for the Israelites, as Paley and Hengstenberg would have us believe, but for man ... that is, for the race. Hence we conclude that the Sabbath was sanctified from the beginning, and that it was given to Adam, even in Eden, as one of those primeval institutions that God ordained for the happiness of all men.” Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption, (St. Louis, The Bethany Press, 1962), p. 165.

    Congregationalist: “The Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath.” Dwight's Theology, Vol. 4, p. 401.

    Episcopal: “Sunday (Dies Solis, of the Roman calendar, ‘day of the sun,’ because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship. ... No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined.” "Sunday," A Religious Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, (New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1883) p. 2259.

    Lutheran: “The observance of the Lord’s day [Sunday] is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church.” Augsburg Confession of Faith, quoted in Catholic Sabbath Manual, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 10.

    Methodist: “Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day.” Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942.

    Moody Bible Institute: “The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?” D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting, p. 47.

    Presbyterian: “Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand. ... The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath.” T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp. 474, 475.

    Pentecostal: “ ‘Why do we worship on Sunday? Doesn’t the Bible teach us that Saturday should be the Lord’s Day?’ ... Apparently we will have to seek the answer from some other source than the New Testament” David A. Womack, "Is Sunday the Lord's Day?" The Pentecostal Evangel, Aug. 9, 1959, No. 2361, p. 3.

    Encyclopedia: “Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun. ... The seventh day was blessed and hallowed by God himself, and ... he requires His creatures to keep it holy to Him. This commandment is of universal and perpetual obligation.”Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia, 1890 ed., p. 561.

    https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-l...k-of-the-beast


    One can see under this interpretation that there is one blasphemous, Romanesque power which made war against the saints and prevailed against them by foisting upon them its power to change times and laws - God's times and laws. Behind it all is the vital importance of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy, which tells us who the prince of the covenant is that will be cut off, and also points to a great antagonist, the Little Horn, the Antichrist, who made war on the saints. If this prophecy points to Jesus as the prince who was cut off, then there is also a firm Biblical basis to discern who the other guy is.
    Last edited by Legio_Italica; September 13, 2020 at 02:57 PM. Reason: Tables will not display?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •