“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” Dan.9:25 Part #2

“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” Dan. 9:25 – Part #2

“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 three score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Dan. 9:25

Once Gabriel had given Daniel the general overview of the events of the “seventy weeks,” he elaborated on certain important themes. You may recall that the first statement in Dan. 9:24 concerned the interval of “seventy weeks;” in that verse we were engaged with the events that were to transpire during that time. However, in this verse the question is, “How is that time going to be divided or apportioned?” Will there be different segments into which those “seventy weeks” would be divided? Gabriel exhorted Daniel to “Know and therefore understand or discern” the arrangement of the “seventy weeks.” The next three verses, Dan. 9:25-27, explain the threefold division of the “seventy weeks.” The first part would be “seven weeks” or 49 years, long. The second part would be “sixty-two weeks” or 434 years, long. The third and final part, would be “one week” or seven years, long.

If this timetable is to tell us anything about God’s prophetic calendar, we need to know when this period of “seventy weeks” or 490 years began. If our reckoning is incorrect here, no calculations based on this passage will be worth anything. The beginning of the “seventy weeks” was definitely given as the time of, “the issuing of the decree/commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” The question is, “Which decree was this and when was it given?” So, it is absolutely essential that we identify the exact decree/commandment referred to and when it was issued.

We know first of all, that this decree concerned itself solely with the restoration and reconstruction of the city of Jerusalem, because the latter part of v.25 says; “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” It was in 536 B.C.E. that Cyrus, upon taking the throne of the Medo-Persian Empire, issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem. The record of this edict is found in Ezra 1:1-3, “Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, so that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying, “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia; The LORD God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He has charged me to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all His people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel (He is the God) which is in Jerusalem.” It is clear from this passage that his commandment included the reconstruction of the house of the LORD God of Israel and intended nothing more. Ezra 6:15 bears this out, “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius, the king.” Therefore, that decree, cannot be the decree spoken of in Dan. 9:25.

Another imperial decree was the first decree of Artaxerxes, which authorized Ezra to go up to Jerusalem on important business. According to Ezra 7:8, this decree was issued in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign, “And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month (Av), which was in the seventh year of of the king.” Artaxerxes ruled the Persian Empire from 465 B.C.E. to 424 B.C.E. Therefore, the seventh year of his reign would be around 458 B.C.E. Was that the decree that Gabriel referred to? You must observe that Ezra was solely a scribe of the law of the LORD, instructing the people of Israel in the Law and in the statutes of the LORD. Therefore, his calling would not include rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. Also, Ezra 7:13 says, “I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of His priests and Levites, in my realm, who are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.” Therefore, Artaxerxes’ decree authorized Ezra only to assemble and conduct to Jerusalem those Jewish people who were minded to go of their own free will, and that whatever offerings were entrusted to him were not for rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, but were to be used to rebuild the house of the LORD and to make an offering once they were there; Ezra 7:15-17  says, “And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counselors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem. And all the silver and gold that you can find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God, which is in Jerusalem; That you may buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, and their meal offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God, which is in Jerusalem.” So, you can see from these verses, that every part of this first decree of Artaxerxes was concerned only with matters relating to the Temple in Jerusalem, and not in any way related to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.

King Artaxerxes Longimanus issued a second decree in the twentieth year of his reign, 444/445 B.C.E. It was given to Nehemiah and we have a record of it in Neh. 2:4-8, and this undoubtedly was the edict that Dan. 9:25 refers too. In this second edict there was nothing of the exclusively religious nature of the other two decrees. It dealt solely with a matter of political import, the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. You only have to read the book of Nehemiah and its account of his works to know that his activity answers exactly to the requirements of the decree in Dan. 9:25. “Then the king said to me, For what do you make request? So, I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant has found pleasure in thy sight, that thou would send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchers, that I may build it. And the king said unto me (the queen also sitting by him), For how long shall your journey be? And when will you return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time. Moreover, I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may let me pass through till I come unto Judah; And a letter unto Asaph, the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which is near to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.” Neh. 2:4-8. The word “wall” (koma) appears 34 times in Nehemiah, more than any other book in the Scriptures and means protection, safety and impenetrability. Nehemiah heard, “the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and the gates were burned with fire and the remnant was in great reproach and affliction and he wept and mourned and fasted and prayed, Neh. 1:3-4. So, he needed to rebuild the “walls” for protection, to rebuild the people for preservation, to rebuild Israel by re-population.

Thus, the “seventy weeks” of years began in the month of Nisan (March/April) 444/445 B.C.E. We read in Dan. 9:25 that the first division of the “seventy weeks” was a “seven week” or 49-year-long, period. It is stated that the work to be accomplished during this period was the reconstruction of Jerusalem: “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” This describes the work of Nehemiah and his men who performed their task under very difficult circumstances, with a trowel in one hand and a weapon in the other, Neh. 4:17. That’s exactly what this prophecy said, “They would rebuild their street and wall “again” in troublous, perilous, times.” We will have to stop there, and pick up on the second division of the “seventy weeks of years” next time. Check out our note on (Dr. Charles Feinberg) on our last blog on Dan. 9:24. So, till next time, we’ll see you, “…Between The Lines…”

“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” Dan. 9:25 – Part #2 – 6/1/13

1 Comment

Filed under "A More Sure Word of Prophecy", "Daniel 9 & Isaiah 53 - Inseparable!", "Prophecy For Today & Tomorrow", Background To Daniel's Prayer, Daniel 9:24-27 - Part #1, Daniel 9:24-27 - Part #2, Daniel 9:24-27 - Part #3, Daniel 9:24-27 - Part #4, Daniel's Seventy Weeks of Years - Dan. 9:24, Daniel's Seventy Weeks of Years - Dan. 9:25 - Part#2, Prophecy, Uncategorized

“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” – Dan. 9:24 – Part #1

“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” Dan. 9:24 – Part #1

Dan. 9:1-2, “In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years, concerning which the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”

Daniel had been adsorbed in the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah when Gabriel redirected his attention to another segment of time he called the, “Seventy Weeks.”  Dan. 9:24, “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.”  Our tendency would have been to think of a week as ‘seven days’ because that is the most common usage in our western culture, but not in Israel’s and not in the 6th century B.C.E. They did have a period of seven days which they called a “week;” but they also had a period of seven years that they also called a “week,” or a “heptad.” An example of this from our culture would be the word “dozen;” by itself it merely specifies quantity, without indicating what kind of object, or quantity is being numbered.

Then how can anyone decide whether a “week” means seven days or seven years? Not every reference in the Bible to the word “week” means seven years or seven days: Therefore, the correct interpretation of each passage must be decided on the basis of its own context, by the meaning of that particular portion of Scripture. In this particular case, the principle of “year-weeks” is found in Numbers 14:34, “After the number of the days in which you searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall you bear your iniquities, even forty years, and you shall know My breach of promise.”  Other examples of this “year-weeks” principle may be found in Gen. 29:27; Lev. 26:34; Ezk. 4:6.

These seventy blocks or ‘heptads’ of years add up to 490 years. We read in Dan. 9:24, “Seventy weeks are determined (katak – decreed),” have been decreed. This term occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures and means basically, “to cut off, to decide, to appoint, and thus, to determine.” The idea here is that this special segment of time had been cut off and set aside for a particular purpose. (This is very important and the only place in all of the Scriptures this word appears) This verse continues to say, the “seventy weeks” were decreed for “thy people and for thy holy city.” Those are some of the most important words of the whole prophecy and failure to pay close attention to them has led many good people to go astray in their interpretations of this passage. Clearly the predictions that follow are solely concerned with Daniel’s people, the Jewish people, and not with the church, which is the Body of Christ. Moreover, they also relate to Daniel’s own holy city, which could only mean the holy city of Jerusalem.

During those “seventy weeks of years,” the great works to be accomplished were: first, “to finish the transgression”; second, “to make an end of sins”; third, “to make atonement for iniquity”; fourth, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”; fifth, “to seal up the vision and prophecy;” and sixth, “to anoint the most Holy.” “To finish the transgression” is sometimes interpreted as meaning, “to restrain or hold sin back.”  As though to prevent it from spreading. However, it is better to understand it as the removal of sin from God’s sight. “To make an end of sin,” is to hide it out of sight, and the phrase is derived from the custom of sealing up things that were to be concealed.  “To make atonement for iniquity,” means, “to overlay or to cover over sin;” to atone for it, pardon it, and forgive it. Three important Hebrew words for sin are used in this passage, (pesha – transgression/rebellion; cheit – sin/miss the mark; avon – iniquity/perverseness). The triple statement concerning sin and the Messiah’s work in relation to sin deals with the negative aspect of His ministry. In the three other great works that were to be accomplished during the “seventy weeks of years” we find the positive aspect of the Messiah’s ministry.

First, the Messiah’s work would “bring in everlasting righteousness.” He would first provide a basis on which men can become righteous, and then He will set up on earth an eternal kingdom of righteousness. Salvation and righteousness, are the chief characteristics of the Messiah’s coming rule on the earth, (Isa. 45:17; 51:6-8; Jer. 33:14-16). Second, “To seal up the vision and the prophecy;” Refers to giving the seal of confirmation to Daniel and his vision, by fulfilling his predictions. In Isa. 8:16 it says, “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.” This phrase meant that the prophecy was complete and the command was given to bind it up, to roll it up like a scroll and seal it. Dan. 8:26 says, “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.” Here the thought was to seal up the prophecy and make a permanent record of it, so that when it was fulfilled the event could be compared to the prophecy to show how completely the one corresponds to the other.

Third, “To anoint the most Holy (place).” This has been explained in several different ways, and has been suggested at various times, that what was meant here was the anointing of the Temple after the defilement of Antiochus Epiphanes; that it referred to the anointing of the temple of the body of the Messiah; or that it predicts the anointing of the Temple in Jerusalem after its pollution by the Antichrist. It is better understood however, in this author’s opinion, (Dr. Charles Feinberg’s) to understand this passage as referring to the ‘Millennial Temple’ which is described in great detail in Ezek. 40-48. When we consider the first three great purposes of God for those 490 years , we realize that all three were accomplished by the death of the Messiah on the cross of Calvary for us. However, it is imperative that we also recognize that Israel did not partake of these nationally. It would take 490 years for this to be accomplished for Israel, not just potentially, but actually. Similarly, the last three great purposes of God for those 490 years refer to the fulfillment of this prophecy in the national life of Israel. It cannot be over stressed that the people and the city spoken of in this passage were Daniel’s people and city. The Gentiles (non-Jews) and the church, important entities as they surely are, were not in view here! Till next time, we will see you, “…Between The Lines…”

Dr. Charles Feinberg, was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home in Pittsburgh, PA. He was a Biblical scholar and professor of Semitics and Old Testament, and an authority on Jewish history, languages and the customs of the Old Testament and Biblical prophecies. He studied for 14 years to become a Rabbi and graduated from the Hebrew Institute and the University of Pittsburgh in preparation for ordination and  just days before he was to be ordained a Rabbi he accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Messiah. He went on to graduate  from Dallas Theological Seminary  with a Th.M. and Th.D. and earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University in Archaeology and Semitic languages. He was the longest serving dean at Talbot Seminary and one of the translators of the New American Standard Bible. So as we consider his work on Daniel 9:24-27 he comes with the right set of credentials.

“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks of Years” – Dan. 9:24 – Part #1 5/30/13

1 Comment

Filed under "A More Sure Word of Prophecy", "Daniel 9 & Isaiah 53 - Inseparable!", "Prophecy For Today & Tomorrow", Background To Daniel's Prayer, Daniel's Seventy Weeks of Years - Dan. 9:24, Prophecy, Uncategorized

“The Annals of The World” by ‘Archbishop James Ussher’ Part #1

“Annals Of The World by James Ussher – Part #1”

Appendix G: “The Seder Olam Rabbah” (1) (Why Jewish Dating Is Different) or the “Book of the Order of The World,” was compiled by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta (who died 160 AD), and is to this day the traditional Jewish chronology. (2) From this ancient work, the Jewish people reckon the current year (2012 AD) as (5772) and understand it to be the number of the years since the creation .

At the time the Seder Olam was compiled, the Jews generally dated their years from 312 BC – the beginning of the Seleucid era. For the next few centuries, the Seder Olam was of interest exclusively to only students of the Talmud. (3)

When the center of Jewish life moved from Babylonia to Europe during the 8th and 9th centuries AD, calculations from the Seleucid era became meaningless. Over those centuries, it was replaced by that of the anno mundi era (AM = “from the creation of the world”) of the Seder Olam. From the 11th century, anno mundi dating became dominant throughout most of the world’s Jewish communities. (4)

As Old Testament Scripture is the basis for Seder Olam dating, we would suppose the Jewish chronology to be similar to that of Ussher’s and thus expect them to place the creation date around 6,000 years ago. Yet rather than 4004 BC, the Seder Olam places creation at 3761. The question thus becomes: On what basis do the Jews number their years such that a 243 year shortfall occurs?

The Missing Years:

1. From the creation to the birth of Abraham: Ussher has – 2008 years from, 4004-1996 BC;  Seder Olam has – 1948 years from, 3761-1811 BC (exclusive reckoning) a shortfall of 60 years. – Terah was 130 years old rather than 70 when Abraham was born. (Gen. 11:26 says, “Terah lived 70 years and begot Abram,” it doesn’t say he was 70 when he was born. Gen. 11:32 and 12:4 say, “Terah was 205 when he died in Haran and Abram was 75 when he departed from Haran with Lot.” So, 205 minus 75 equals 130. Thus the first deficit is about 60 years.

2. From the birth of Abraham to the Exodus from Egypt: Ussher has – 505 years from, 1996 – 1491 BC;  Seder Olam has – 500 years from, 1811 – 1311 BC, a shortfall of 5 years. – Abraham was 75 years old when the covenant was made in Gen. 12:4, the Exodus was 430 years later, Gal. 3:17, “The covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after cannot annul that it should make the promise of no effect.” Exodus 12:40-41 says, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the very same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Without New Testament revelation for clarification, the Seder Olam reckons five fewer years. The shortfall now totals 65 years.

3. From the Exodus to the laying of the Temple foundation, I Kings 6:1, “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.” Ussher has – 480 years from, 1491 – 1012 BC (inclusive reckoning);  Seder Olam has 480 years from, 1311 – 831 BC, a shortfall of 0 years. As there is no difference the total shortfall remains at 65 years.

4. From the foundation of the first Temple to the consecration of the second Temple: Ussher has – 497 years from, 1012 – 515 BC;  Seder Olam has 480 years from, 831 – 351 BC, a shortfall of 17 years. – Differing decisions in placing the dates of the kings of Israel with respect to the kings of Judah during the period of the divided monarchy account for these 17 years.  Thus far, the Seder Olam reckons 82 (65+17) fewer years difference over a 3,489 year span (4004-515) from creation to the consecration of the second Temple of which the major part concerns the age of Terah at Abraham’s birth.

5. From the consecration of the second Temple to its destruction by Titus of Rome: Ussher has – 584 years from, 515 BC – 70 AD;  Seder Olam has 420 years from, 351 BC – 70 AD, a shortfall of 164 years. – Here we see the main source of the discrepancy found in the Seder Olam’s shorter chronology. Its 420 years are divided into spans of 34, 180, 103, and 103 years of successive foreign rule over Israel. As shown in that which follows, it is remarkable that the 164 year span disparity is almost entirely from within the first or Persian period, which follow. The remaining three periods closely approximate that of the standard chronology. (6)

a) 34 years (351-317 BC) for the remainder of the Persian rule over Israel: from the dedication of the second temple to Ptolemy I Soter’s invasion of Jerusalem (Ptolemy I was one of Alexander the Great’s favorite generals; also called Soter or Saviour, 367?-283 BC. After Alexander’s death in 323, he seized Egypt as his share of the divided Greek empire and assumed the title, “King of Egypt.”).

b) 180 years (317-137 BC) for the Grecian rule: from Ptolemy’s invasion to the times when Simon the Maccabean became ruler in Israel and Rome recognized the independence of the Jewish state.

c) 103 years (137 – 34 BC) for the rule of the Hasmonean (Maccabean) family in Isarel: from Simon to the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great.

d) 103 years (34 BC – 70 AD) for the Herodian rule until the destruction of the temple.

There is some discrepancy with the standard dates in the later three periods  (b, c & d). The standard date for Alexander’s defeat of Darius is 331 BC rather than the Seder Olam’s 321. It gives Simon’s rule as beginning in 142 BC (not 137) and Herod’s in 37 BC (not 34). (7)

But what are we to understand from (a) where the Seder Olam only allows 34 years for the remainder of the Persian period? Indeed, by Seder Olam reckoning there are only 30 years from the dedication of the second temple to Darius’ defeat at the hands of Alexander in 321 BC and merely four years after that unto Jerusalem’s capture by Ptolemy following Alexander’s death. Moreover, here the two systems exhibit a striking contrast. The Ptolemaic chronology lists eight Persian kings from darius I Hystaspes to Darius III Codomannus, the king whom Alexander overcame. However, the Seder Olam identifies the Darius who was reigning during the dedication of the second temple as the same Darius that Alexander defeated. (8)

Recording only five Persian monarchs, Seder Olam gives the following chronology for its 52/53 year depiction of Persian history:

1. Darius the Mede reigns 1 year – 3389 – 3390 AM (374 – 373 BC) Babylon is conquered and Daniel is in the lions den.

2. Cyrus reigns 3 years – 3390 – 3392 AM (373 – 371 BC, inclusive) The Jews return and the second temple construction begins.

3. Artaxerxes (Cambyses) reigns one-half of a year – 3393 AM (370 BC) Temple construction halted.

4. Ahasuerus reigns 14 years – 3393 – 3407 AM (370 – 356 BC) Esther is chosen queen and Esther bears Darius the Persian.

5. Darius the Persian reigns 35 years – 3407 – 3442 AM (356 – 321 BC) Temple construction resumes, 3408 AM (355 BC); Second Temple dedicated 3412 AM (355 BC); Ezra comes to Jerusalem 3413 AM (350 BC); Nehemiah comes to Jerusalem 3426 AM (337 BC); Darius defeated by Alexander 3442 AM (321 BC).

Thus the Seder Olam depicts the Kingdom of Persia as lasting a mere 53 years from 374 to 321 BC, rather than about 207 years from 538 to 331 BC. Join us next time as we see the ramifications of this problem and how they impact prophecy and especially Daniel chapter nine. This article is mostly copied from Archbishop James Ussher’s book, “The Annals of the World,” Appendix G: the Seder Olam Rabbah – Why Jewish dating Is Different.” We strongly advise you to purchase a copy of his book and read it. Though it is rather massive and a bit expensive it is really worth having in your library for future reference. That’s why we are posting his appendix, because we feel it is so important to our blog on Dan. 9:24-27 which is the only ‘Old Testament’ prophecy which sets the time of the Messiah’s first coming.  So, until the next time we meet, we’ll see you, “…Between The Lines…”

“The Annals of The World” by ‘Archbishop James Ussher’  5/30/13 Part #1

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Annals of The World” by ‘Archbishop James Ussher’ Part 2

“Annals Of The World by James Ussher – Part #2”

Thus the Seder Olam depicts the Kingdom of Persia lasting a mere 53 years from 374 to 321 BC, rather than about 207 years from 538 to 331 BC. (9) Over the centuries, orthodox rabbis have differed somewhat in their listing of the Persian Kings, but they generally have not departed from the 52/53 year parameter established within the Seder Olam. (10) The result of this shortening of the span of the Persian Empire is that the paramount prophecy and the major foundation block of chronology, “The Daniel 9:25 seventy weeks of years,” has become dislodged! Furthermore, this shortening as perpetuated within the Seder Olam is deliberate!

While not openly admitting this, present day Jewish scholars acknowledge that there is something enigmatic (mysterious or obscure) about the Seder Olam’s dating. For example, after stating that the commonly received dates in the Ptolemaic chronology, “can hardly be doubted,” Rabbi Simon Schwab nevertheless goes on to uphold his own tradition. (11) “It should have been possible that our Sages – for some unknown reason – had ‘covered up’ a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of ‘Divine Command’ could have prompted those saintly, ‘men of truth’ to leave out completely all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent chronological gap could escape being noticed by countless generations, known to a few initiates only who were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves. ” (Emphasis Schwab’s)

This is an astonishing proposal! Schwab, along with other Jewish commentators, further suggests that the reason God directed the Sages of the 2nd century AD to become involved in falsifying the data was to confuse anyone who might try to use the prophecies of Daniel to predict the time of the Messiah’s coming. (unbelievable!)  This was supposedly done to honor Daniel 12:4 which says, “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.” He adds that the reason the Sages had adopted the non-Jewish Seleucid Era calendar was part of the scheme to do just that, to close up the words and seal the book of Daniel. (12) Schwab also states that if the 165 years were included it would reveal that, “we are much closer to the end of the 6th Millennium than we had surmised.” (13) (Schwab mentions this date as the time when many Rabbis expect the Messiah to come.) No, if the 165 years were included, it would point to Jesus Christ in 33 AD and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD that’s why! Leon Morris says, “Why? Tradition, that’s why! Tradition is born out of denial of the truth!” But can any sincere reader accept such a flimsy reason as justification for distorting history? It actually accuses God Himself of perpetuating a dishonest deception. (Which is a lie!)

Indeed, it is manifestly apparent that the real reasons for the deliberate altering of their own national chronology in the Seder Olam were: (1) To conceal the fact that the Daniel 9:25 prophecy clearly pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as its fulfillment and therefore the long awaited Messiah; and (2) To make that seventy week of years prophecy point to Simon bar Kokhba! The Rabbis in the century immediately following Christ Jesus had a tremendous problem with so direct a prophecy as Daniel 9:24-27. This chapter speaks of Messiah’s appearing 69 “weeks” (i.e. 69 sevens) or 483 years after the going forth of a commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem and its walls.

Such must either be acknowledged and his person accepted or completely erased from Jewish consciousness. The latter could be accomplished if the 69 or (70) weeks of years could some how be made  to apply to the century after the life of Christ. Then it would be possible for the Rabbis to point to another messiah who, as circumstances would have it was cut off in death some 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. (14) The 9th day of the month of Av (July/August) is a great day of fasting and sorrow for Israel. On this day in 586/588 BC the Babylonians destroyed Solomon’s Temple and burned it to the ground. Further, the second Temple was laid waste and burned to the ground by the Romans under Titus on the same day in 70 AD, and on that very same day in 135 AD at the conclusion of a three and a half year revolt, the Romans crushed the army of the “messianic” Simon bar Kokhba (also spelled ‘Cocheba‘).

Bar Kokhba had been declared the long-awaited Messiah by the foremost Jewish scholar of that day, the highly venerated Rabbi Akiva (Akiba) ben Joseph. In 130 AD, Emperor Hadrian of Rome declared his intention to raise a shrine to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, (15) and in 131 he issued a decree forbidding circumcision as well as public instruction in Jewish law. (16) Having preached peace all his life, the 90 year old Akiva gave his blessing to the revolution by proclaiming that Bar Kokhba was the “star out of Jacob” and the “scepter out of Israel.” (Num. 24:17) (17)

In his 98th year Rabbi Akiva was eventually imprisoned and condemned to death by the Romans. (18) Among the many accolades heaped upon Akiva, that which elevated him as a pre-eminent authority, was the acknowledging of him as “the father of the Mishnah.” (19) Such prominence gave great weight to the Messianic expectancy Akiva placed upon Bar Kokhba. Akiva’s students became some of the most prominent sages of the following generation. Among these was Yose (Jose) ben Halafta. Akiva’s influence on Halafta is apparent from a statement made concerning his education, “it was merely said that Rabbi Akiva had been his teacher.” (20) As his mentor, Akiva’s regard for Bar Kokhba would have been thoroughly imbedded in Yose. (21) The preceding overview explains why the Seder Olam is held in such veneration and why the Jews still use it for their national dating. Yet the fact remains that it is a dishonest attempt to conceal the truth with regards to the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy.

By removing the 164/165 years from the duration of the Persian Empire, Rabbi Halafta was able to make the 483 year Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy fall reasonably close to the years prior to the 132 AD revolt during which Bar Kokhba rose to prominence as Israel’s military and economic leader. (22) Then with Akiva proclaiming, “This is the King Messiah” (23) followed by “all the contemporary sages regarding him as the king Messiah, ” (24) the Jewish populace united behind this false hope.

Dio Cassius states that the whole of Judea was in revolt, the whole nation. To quell the rebellion, Hadrian dispatched Julius Serverus, his ablest general from Britain. The Romans destroyed 985 towns in Palestine/Israel and slew 580,000 men. A still larger number perished through starvation, disease and fire. All Judah was laid waste, and bar Kokhba himself fell while defending Bethar. (25) Even more astonishing is that, “even in later generations, despite the disappointment engendered by his defeat, his image persisted as the embodiment of Messianic hopes.” (26) Indeed, the consistent verdict of Jewish historians is: “The most important historical Messianic figure was surely Bar Kokhba.” (27)

Yose ben Halafta (28) and his fellow compilers of the Seder Olam sought to terminate the 69 “weeks of years” as close to the 132 AD revolt as possible, but they were limited as to where they could make “the cuts.” As the chronology of the Seleucid era onward was firmly fixed among the Jews, years could not be sliced from their history after 312 BC.  Since the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy dealt with a decree that was biblically and historically issued by a Persian monarch, this left only the Persian period of history for them to exploit. The Persians had been so hated by the Greeks and later by the Moslems that these two conquerors destroyed nearly all the Persian records. This has created great difficulty in recovering their sequence of kings, the length of their reigns, and thereby their chronology. Thus, the Persian period was readily vulnerable to manipulation. (29)

The authors of this article offer the only conclusion and the only reasonable, logical deduction that can be drawn from these historical and biblical facts. I will also include an article from the ‘Encyclopedia Judaica’ on the “Seder Olam” which will help to verify these findings in my next blog. This article was compiled by; Archbishop James Ussher;  Floyd Jones, Th. D, Ph. D.; Larry Pierce; and other minor additions were added by me. I trust this will be helpful in showing why there is a difference of 243 years between the Gentile solar calender and the Jewish lunar calender. It is not just the difference between the sun and the moon it is an intentional, computational difference. However, Dan. 9:24-27 tells us that Israel’s Messiah had to come before the destruction of their Temple and that happened in 70 AD, so if it wasn’t Jesus of Nazareth then who was it?  Make sure on these last two blogs you read slowly and: “…Between The Lines…”

References & Footnotes:

1. The Seder Olam is divided into three parts, each consisting of ten chapters, (called tractates). Part One, gives the dates of the major events from the creation to the crossing of the Jordan River under Joshua’s command. Part Two, extends frrom the Jordan crossing to the murder of Zachariah, King of Israel. (II Kings 15:10. Chapters 21-27 of Part Three, extend to Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the Temple and chapter 28 to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. Chapter 29 and the first part of 30 cover the Persian period. The remainder of chapter 30 contains a summary of events from the conquest of Persia by Alexander to the 132 AD Bar Kokhba (also spelled “Cocheba“) revolt during the reign of Hadrian (AD 76-138). Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol. 14, “Seder Olam Rabbah,” p. 1091-1092.

2. Jack Moorman, Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides, (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 1999), p. 10-15. Moorman’s research was a primary source for this expose’.

3. Encyclopedia Judaica, “Seder Olam Rabbah.” p. 1092.

4. Ibid.

5. Not having access to Seder Olam for this expose’ the numbers are those recorded by Moorman. As his source occasionally reckoned exclusively or inclusively, so did he. Most Jewish dates may be confirmed in Jack Finegan, ‘Handbook of Biblical Chronology’ (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), p. 130.

6. Moorman, Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides, p. 12.

7. Ibid.

8. Martin Anstey, The Romance of Bible Chronology (London: Marshall Bros., 1913), p. 23-24.

9. Moorman, Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides, p. 12.

10. Ibid. p. 13.

11. Simon Schwab, Dr. Joseph Breuer Jubilee Volume, “Comparative Jewish Chronology,” (New York, NY: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society, Philipp Felheim Inc., 1962), p. 188.

12. Shimon Schwab, Selected Speeches: A Collection of Addresses and Essays on Hashkafah, Contemporary Issues and Jewish History, “Comparative Jewish Chronology” (lakewood, NJ: CIS Pub., 1991), p. 270-272.

13. Schwab, Dr. Joseph Breuer Jubilee Volume, p. 190-191.

14. Of course no such admission by any of the Jewish Sages can be cited, but the facts are obvious.

15. Dio Cassius, Roman History, Vol. Viii, Loeb (2000) Bk. 69, p. 447.

16. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Volume 3 (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 548.

17. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 2, “Akiva,” p. 489.

18. Durant, The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, p. 548-549.

19. Akiva made a preliminary gathering and formulation of the material for the six orders (containing 63 chapters or tractates) of that religious code which was the heart of the Talmud. Near the end of the 2nd century, Judah ha Nasi completed the work. Moorman, Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides, p. 14.

20. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 16, “Yose ben Halafta.” p. 852.

21. Ibid. p. 853. Yose ben Halafta’s own influence may be seen in that some of his writings were included in Judah ha Nasi’s final editing of the Mishnah, and his name is mentioned in 59 of the 63 tractates. Though referred to in the Mishnah and Talmud, Halafta’s ‘Seder Olam’ is not a formal part of that work. Nevertheless, it is a work of Talmudic authority, and to openly contradict it would be unthinkable to orthodox Jews. as Rabbi Schwab stated: “…our traditional chronology is based on ‘Seder Olam‘ because of the authority of its author. it is therefore quite inconceivable that any post-Talmudic teacher could possible ‘reject’ those chronological calculations which have been the subject of many a Talmudic discussion.” (Schwab, Dr. Joseph Breuer Jubilee Volume, p. 186). Thus it is that the Seder Olam is held in such high esteem and is still used by the Jews for their national dating.

22. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 4, “Bar Kokhba,” p. 230.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid. p. 231.

25. Dio Cassius, Roman History, Vol. VIII, Bk. 69, p. 449-450; Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 548.

26. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 4, “Bar Kokhba,” p. 231.

27. Ibid., Vol. 11, “Messiah,” p. 1410.

28. Not only do Jews venerate Jose/Yose because the Seder Olam had its origin in his school, he is regarded with a near superstitious reverence. This may be seen in that it was said: “that he was worthy of having the prophet Elijah reveal himself to him regularly in order to teach him.” Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 16, “Yose ben Halafta,” p. 853.

29. Yet despite all that has been said concerning the Jews veneration for Jose, the Encyclopedia Judaica forthrightly admits: “The most significant confusion in Jose’s calculation is the compression of the Persian period, from the rebuilding of the Temple by Zerubbabel in 516 BC to the conquest of Persia by Alexander, to no more than 34 years.” (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, “Seder Olam Rabbah,” p. 1092).

“The Annals of The World” by ‘Archbishop James Ussher’ Part #2 – 5/30/13 (Appendix G: Seder Olam Rabbah)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ (Part #1)

“The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #1”

Many theories regarding the date of the writing of Daniel have been produced over time, but today there seem to be two prevalent views that remain. The conservative view, that Daniel wrote the book around 530 B.C.E. We collect this date from the internal evidence of the book itself, extending to the third year of Cyrus which would be around 536 B.C.E. While the skeptical, more liberal view is that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.E during the Maccabean Revolt.

The cause for this skeptical view is evident, it began with the pagan philosopher Porphyry, who died around 304 C.E. While visiting Sicily, where he wrote a series of 15 books entitled, “Against the Christians.” Parts of the twelfth book, in which he attacked Daniel have been preserved in Jerome’s commentary on Daniel. Porphyry denied that Daniel, in the sixth century B.C.E. was the author of the book that bears his name and proclaimed that the book was written around 175-164 B.C.E. by some anonymous scribe who lived in Judea during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If this was true then Daniel was just a history book and he interpreted the events he lived through instead of prophesying about events that were yet to come. Porphyry came to this conclusion because the book of Daniel speaks so accurately about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, which of course would give credence to precise, predictive, prophecy, had it been written earlier. Porphyry’s criticism therefore, was based on his anti-prophetic, philosophical, presuppositions. Even though Porphyry’s theory was refuted by many including Methodius, Eusebius of Caesarea and Apollinarius it would again be revived.

The issue surrounding the date of Daniel is of extreme importance for at least three reasons: First; the sovereignty of God as revealed in the book becomes a matter for consideration. If Daniel’s God is able to predict the future, then there is enough reason to believe that men today still live under the same sovereignty of that same God. On the other hand, if the predictions are false, then men must remain at best, unbelieving in regard to their position about Daniel’s God. Second; the Divine inspiration of the Bible also becomes a matter for consideration. If the book contains accurate predictions, then there is good reason to believe that ultimately it owes its origin to “GOD.” However, if Daniel is viewed as a fraud, then the reliability of other books in the canon of scripture may be legitimately called into question as well.  Third; understanding the nature of Jesus Christ depends on the answer to the date of the book, since Jesus Christ Himself regarded the book of Daniel as a prophetic preview of future history in Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20. If Christ was wrong in His statements, then His claim to deity is questionable and cannot be refuted successfully!

From the conservative or evangelical standpoint, the early date for Daniel is no problem at all. For if a person who believes in the inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of scripture and the deity of Jesus Christ, they must reside with the conservative view that the book of Daniel is prophetic and pre-Maccabean as a result of Jesus Christ’s own mention of the prophet. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus is speaking and says, “So when you see, ‘the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet…” So, we see a direct reference to the book of Daniel by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, naming him as the author and also proclaiming him as a prophet. Therefore, the words which Daniel declared and wrote would have been true prophecy, not just fraudulent claims to prophecy as recorded history, during or after the events as some claim. Furthermore, Ezekiel 14:14, 14:20; 28:3 also make specific references to the person of Daniel, who contextually fits this same Daniel as the author of the prophetic book. Now there are no disputes about the general dating of Ezekiel, which was written between 593 – 571 B.C.E. If Ezekiel wrote in the sixth century B.C.E. and spoke of Daniel three times along with other previous saints, how could he be speaking of a “Daniel” that hadn’t existed yet, and wouldn’t exist until the second century? It only seems logical that he was speaking about someone that existed in the sixth century B.C.E. or earlier.

The skeptics claim that this second century ‘Judean Daniel’ was writing during the ‘Maccabean Revolt’ in which his writings were brought on by the persecution, as he recorded the events of and around the time of, Antiochus Epiphanes. However, if we could ask the brave Maccabeans who looked back upon the book of Daniel as a heroic example of moral fortitude despite surpassing persecutions, they would tell us that Daniel was not of their time, and in fact, they do tell us that in, I Maccabees. The book of Maccabees (written at this period with an authored date between 135 – 80 B.C.E.) captures this instance: “Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel, because of his innocence, was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none of those who put their trust in Him will lack strength.” (I Maccabees 2:59-61) Here we see the past tense of the word “was” used to describe Daniel’s long-ago, past tense delivery from the lion’s den, along with the phrase, “from generation to generation” implying that Daniel existed generations ago.

Then we see from a secular standpoint in the writings of Josephus a credited historian that some of the prophecies of Daniel were explicitly connected to the Maccabean period: “Though these dreams and visions all concern events in the future, there is considerable variation both in the timescale involved and in the scope of the events predicted. Some dreams predict events for the immediate future, some for the more distant future, and some for the very distant future. The dream of Pharaoh’s butler indicated that he would be released from prison, “within three days” (Ant. 2:65). Events under Antiochus Epiphanes, on the other hand, had been predicted ‘many years’ in advance by Daniel, on the basis of his visions (10.276).”

Josephus believed that Daniel had predicted events that occurred in the Roman period and events that were still to come from his own (Josephus’) point of view: (Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus, Rebecca Gray, Oxford, 1993.) However, more than just a connection to the Maccabean Period we see that Josephus a writer from 37-100 C.E. tells us of the predictions and prophecies of Daniel, “Many years in advance.” These many years were not a matter of a few decades but a very large amount of time, placing Daniel’s writings long before the Maccabean Period, attested to by the Liberals who date the Maccabean writings. The ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ (DSS) have a lot to say about the date of Daniel’s writing and we will pick up Adam’s thought on that next time, in the mean time we’ll see you;   “…Between The Lines…”

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ (Part #1)  5/30/13

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ – Part #2

“The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #2”

The ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ give extensive evidence that would date Daniel not only pre-Maccabean, but much earlier than that as well. The claimed writing of Daniel by the Liberal view is approximately 165 B.C.E. The highly religious and separatist Essenes, a sect of priestly scribes of Judaism, established the ‘Qumran Community’ around 150 B.C.E. and because of their intense beliefs of separatism, their communication and relations with civilization outside of their desert community was scarce and pretty much non-existent. So, when they were established they would already have had, to have had several copies of the book of Daniel in their possession to copy it as extensively as they did. Which would have, according to the 165 B.C.E. date, given the book fifteen years to circulate and gain canonical acceptance. This is so highly improbable in and of itself, that it would have been the fastest book on record to have gained canonicity in Jewish history. To gain the reverence and credibility and to be able to be added to Jewish cannon of Scripture, “The Tenach,” the proof must be extensive and it must have years, decades of time to grow, to gain that kind of superior respect. Daniel also has more copies and commentaries on it found at Qumran than any other book of the Bible even exceeding the number of Jeremiah scrolls.

Manuscripts at Qumran that are dated 3rd century B.C.E. which is a century before the Qumran community came into existence, which is needed to make “generational” copies simply wouldn’t exist. The reason being that the original copies themselves would still have been available and in good shape. What the existence of two textual traditions before Qumran in 150 B.C.E. means, is that the origination date of the “original-original” would most likely be much earlier than a mere fifteen years. So, if an early copy of the text was found at Qumran and we are sure the content wasn’t written there, how far back could we safely reference its origination? What is strange here is that even non-conservative scholars will say the answer to this dating problem is that it must be, “Pre- Maccabean’ because of the time requirement for “literary diffusion.” However, they will not draw this conclusion for the book of Daniel, they will state the fact but refuse it for the mere credence given to ‘Biblical Prophecy.’ Dr. Bruce Waltke complains about this inconsistency: “The discovery of manuscripts of Daniel at Qumran dating from the Maccabean period renders it highly improbable that the book was composed during the time of the Maccabees.” (BibSac-V133 #532, Oct. 1976, p322).

We may conclude that the book of Daniel was regarded as Scripture in the Qumran community for two reasons: First, the large number of preserved copies is an indication of its importance; Second, the way in which it is given authoritative status in the writings as, “written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet:” (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This reference implies that the book of Daniel was regarded as Scripture and that it may have belonged among the “Prophets” in the Jewish canon.

The Liberals would have Daniel written very quickly, during or after the Maccabean revolt, after the Gentile powers were overthrown, which would put the writing around 165 B.C.E. This then derails the main argument as to why the book was “supposedly” written in the first place. The Liberals say it was written to encourage resistance not as a reaction to persecution and in spite of its unknown authorship it was somehow given authoritative and scriptural status and widely distributed within months. The Qumran community moved to the Dead Sea area around 150 B.C.E. only 15 years later and interaction with the religious community outside of itself at that point was very limited, if at all! As mentioned before this would have meant that Daniel would have had to have been accepted as fully inspired Scripture and not just “likable” by the event of separation of about 10-15 years after its alleged origin. An anonymous work, with co-operation of foreign powers, containing many predictions which were partially false under liberal interpretation, yet readily acceptable with the speed of Scripture. This would be highly improbable in fact it would be almost impossible even for the most liberal, liberals!

The Qumran community called Daniel a “Prophet!” They who were eyewitnesses of the occurring events considered his words prophetic of the times and happenings. They were there and they did not consider Daniel’s words to have been merely a description of the past. He was in fact describing their future, and this Qumran community was not a group removed in time from the Maccabean Revolt as a few liberals will try and dispute. Remember, this was not simply a matter of they “liked” Daniel, because they “liked” apocalyptic literature. There were lots of books and writings they “liked” but they never ascribed “prophetic status” to them. There were lots of works they considered “authoritative” but they never ascribed “prophetic status” to those either. However, to the book of Daniel, the people of this Maccabean time period ascribed “full prophetic status” to and reverenced Daniel’s text as “Canonical Scripture.”

Another thing that would help us disprove the “late date theory” is to find writings that are ‘Non-Biblical’ that reference the work of Daniel and are pre-165 B.C.E. There are too many to list but here are a few:  Psuedepigrapha: 1 Enoch (2nd B.C.E.); Sibylline Oracles (2nd B.C.E.); Apocalypse of Zephaniah (1st B.C.E.); Testaments of The Lost fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (we have a reference to Daniel in) Ezekiel the Tragedian (2nd B.C.E.); Apocrypha: Sirach/Ecclesiasticus (Hebrew 189 B.C.E.); Greek Xlate (132 B.C.E.); I Baruch (200-60 B.C.E.); Susanna (3rd-1st B.C.E.); I Maccabees (late 2nd B.C.E.); II Maccabees (mid 2nd B.C.E.).

Join me next time for Adam’s conclusion and summary on the evidence gleaned from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ and the Maccabean period on the “Late Date Theory” for the book of Daniel. Till then we’ll see you,  “…Between The Lines…”

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ – Part #2  5/30/13

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ (Part #3)

“The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #3”

Summary: Now, if we have early Daniel manuscripts from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ that virtually require a pre-Maccabean date for their previous text, under commonly accepted “literary diffusion” time requirements; and all the major pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel; and all the “possibly” to “quite probably” pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel; and all the Maccabean and post-Maccabean works of significance utilize Daniel; and all of the sources closest in time, expertise and eyewitnesses to the situation, (Qumran, New Testament, Josephus, Rabbinics, etc) describe Daniel’s writings as prophecies of the future; and all of the sectarian groups accept Daniel as canonical; and several of the documents discussed suggest a date for Daniel around the end of the 4th century and the start of the 3rd century B.C.E. and the most probable direction of borrowing in each case is from Daniel.  Then, it would be safe to say that Daniel, if not originally 6th century B.C.E. is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore his prophecies were true prophecies indeed!

Daniel also had membership in what is referred to as, “High Scripture” and was fully authoritative in a primary and non-derivitive sense. It was itself “interpreted” and translated in the (Midrash) a Jewish commentary and was “emulated” by many other works. It also enjoyed pan-Jewish acceptance as only the “High Scripture” books did, and this indicates pre-sectarian antiquity for its prophetic significance for the Qumran community as well as the rest of the nation of Israel. Therefore, acceptance of a ‘Late Date Jubilee Theory’ for the book of Daniel, created by the founding Teachers is absolutely absurd!

As we summarize what we have gleaned from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ we see that the presence of the manuscripts of Daniel, when coupled with the “High View Theory” of Daniel as a prophet would indicate a pre-Maccabean date, by a methodology admitted to by the non-conservatives themselves. We see from the fact that Daniel having been written before the Qumran community was established places it minimally, pre-150 B.C.E. and in light of dual textual tradition, canonical prophetic status and pre-sectarian origins, this would support a date of origination much earlier than 165 B.C.E.  Finally we also see that the use of ‘Jubilees’ as authoritative interpretation at Qumran cannot be used successfully to determine the argument. Accordingly, it looks like the manuscript data is very supportive that Daniel is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore the prophetic sections of Daniel were written before the events were mentioned.

If we regard this conclusion to be true and we do, then all the historical and linguistic problems in the book of Daniel are irrelevant, to a discussion of this ‘Maccabean’ or ‘pre-Maccabean’ question. Historical and linguistic difficulties become interpretive issues, and the methods of dating or locating the text within the pre-Maccabean period and methods for assessing the accuracy of the writer become another mater altogether. This material therefore could be used to argue for a 3rd century B.C.E. date versus a 6th century B.C.E. date for an uninformed writer versus an eyewitness writer or for a fictional genre versus a historical genre, but never for a post-Maccabean dating, never! The predictive prophecy relative to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel will therefore stand, and stand firm!

However, as long as we have Daniel commentators, scholars, and skeptics starting out with their presuppositions such as: “We need to assume that the vision of Daniel chapter 8 as a whole is a prophecy after the fact. Why? Because human beings are unable to accurately predict the future events centuries in advance and to say that Daniel could do so, even on the basis of a symbolic revelation, vouchsafed to him by God and interpreted by an angel, is to fly in the face of the certainties of human nature. So what we have here is in fact not a road map of the future laid down in the 6th century B.C. but an interpretation of the events of the author’s own time, 167-164 B.C…” (Towner, Daniel, Interpreter’s Bible, John Knox: 1984, p.115) (An Introduction to the Old Testament, Dillard and Longman III, Zondervan: 1994).

“We’ll always battle the ignorance of the human mind and bias!” Adam Boguski See you next time,  “…Between The Lines…”

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’  (Part #3) 5/30/13

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized