The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

[spin]

You don't see the irony in what you have just tried to argue. You seem to know what both 1 Macc and Dan 9 meant and though they say the same thing that they meant different things, without being able to say how you know.

How we might guess is the different contexts.
In the context of 1 Macc saying the Temple was desolate, it doesn't mean that the building is gone, because the Temple building was still standing during 1 Macc.

In the context of Daniel 9, Dainiel is supposedly writing when the Temple's space is literally totally empty and the building is gone and Daniel 9:17 says that it's "desolate"; then it says the Temple is to be rebuilt; and then it says that the coming prince will make it "desolate" again. So there are two different contexts with two different meanings.

Now you're just bullshitting. Dan 9:17 doesn't support you, "let your face shine on our desolated sanctuary... our desolation." Same language as 1 Macc, nothing more.

This is rakovsky eisegesis.

and then it says that the coming prince will make it "desolate" again. So there are two different contexts with two different meanings.

There are three distinct figures mentioned in 9:25-27: 1) a prince an anointed (who arrives after 7 weeks), 2) an anointed one (cut off 62 weeks later), and 3) a prince (whose forces destroy the city when #2 is cut off).

[Bernard Muller]

There are three distinct figures mentioned in 9:25-27: 1) a prince an anointed (who arrives after 7 weeks), 2) an anointed one (cut off 62 weeks later), and 3) a prince (whose forces destroy the city when #2 is cut off)

I do not agree about the 7 weeks. The anointed one, a prince comes during the 7+62=69 'sevens'.
Dan 9:25-26a “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with plaza and a moat, but in times of trouble.
After the sixty-two ‘sevens’ the anointed one will be cut off [excluded, banished] and will have nothing."
According to that, and how I interpret the 'sevens', I got that timeline:

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

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

All details and additional explanation at http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

It's why I ask first what and when was the Word To Rebuild Jerusalem.

There was no "word to rebuild Jerusalem". My impression has long been that such a beginning point is vague enough for anyone to start counting from whatever point they need to make the final tally hit their desired target.

[spin]

There are three distinct figures mentioned in 9:25-27: 1) a prince an anointed (who arrives after 7 weeks), 2) an anointed one (cut off 62 weeks later), and 3) a prince (whose forces destroy the city when #2 is cut off)

I do not agree about the 7 weeks. The anointed one, a prince comes during the 7+62=69 'sevens'.

This is the mindless bludner that I deal with here, "bad punctuation". It is based on linguistic nonsense. Forget it. It is just plain wrong. Rubbish translation that combines two figures into one just for apologetic reasons: to shoehorn the passage into fitting the post-biblical christian reinterpretation of 9:25-27. It does not reflect the text. It is grammatically silly and misunderstands the structure of the syntax. Just read that post. You need to drop this like hot shit-bricks.

Whether I'm right or not, my understanding is that the one referred to as "a prince an anointed" in 9:25 is Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, the priest written about by Haggai and Zechariah at the building of the temple. He was the crowned figure in Zech 6:9-14 after the disappearance of Zerubbabel. In all probability it was Zerubbabel who was the crowned figure, but the Zech text has been rewritten to have it as Jeshua who has a priest by his throne. Jeshua is both a prince here and an anointed one (as high priest).

Jason [the anointed one]

The attempt to turn Jason into the anointed one fails certainly because the cultural current in which the vision was written would certainly not call Jason "anointed". It is a conservative circle that talks of the anointed one as the prince of the (heavenly) host in 8:10, not a figure who permitted the education of Jewish boys parading naked in a Greek school. The anointed one doesn't re-enter Jerusalem (in 9:26) as Jason does. The last week starts after the anointed one is cut off. 9:26 squeezes in at the end of the 69th week not the beginning of the 70th, which starts with 9:27. Jason was stopped three years into the last week. He is not there in 9:25-27. He would have been anathema to the writers and not accepted as an anointed (high priest). The conservative section of the priesthood fled Jerusalem and apparently joined Judas, 1 Macc 3:49a, the only reason the priestly vestments, first fruits and tithes could be in the hands of the rebellion. They were against Jason.

[Aleph One]

There is some great discussion in this thread about an interesting topic, especially early in the postings. I do feel like it got side-tracked part way through, though. The issue with Daniel and the dates looks like an "agree to disagree" situation to me, at this point.

This was the Achilles heel of Paulinism – it was too self-consciously elitist. Mark, like Paul before him, trash-talked the “other Jesus” tradents (of Peter). That is why Matthew had to declaw and dumb down Mark; without it the gospel story would not have been readable by a wider audience. I think Mary Ann Tolbert was spot on in saying that the aim of Matthew was not simply to “editorialize” Mark.

I had one question about this line of thinking by Solo. I thought Mark is well-known for being written in every-man's greek (and greek being the common tongue across the Roman world, I believe, at that time). Is there a sneaky reason for this? Or how does that fit in with your theory of Mark being targeted to an audience of the elite?

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

From http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 721#p65721

Bad punctuation

Postby spin » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:21 am
One of the astounding perversions of Daniel 9 performed by Christian fundamentalists is the conflation of two durations in 9:25:

"from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the prince the anointed there shall be seven weeks;
and for sixty-two weeks it shall be constructed again with streets and moat, but in troubled time."

These are two separate durations and are clearly so in Hebrew. One has to be a mental contortionist even in English to turn these two durations into one by summing them. (Why sum them and what is the precedent to do so?) The fact that the 62 weeks is to be seen as a separate measure of time is highlighted by the repetition in the following verse. You cannot mistake that though the 62 follows the seven, it is to be seen as distinct in itself. To underline this, all one has to ask is what happened at the beginning of the sixty-two years for it to be separated out at all? The answer of course is that that was when the Prince the Anointed came along (who is almost certainly Cyrus). It is only reprehensible Christian manipulation of these figures that conflates them. Summing them together is a deliberate perversion of the verse due to post-biblical eisegesis of the text.

So now I become one of the Christian fundamentalists because I don't believe in your punctuation (;), which does not exist in the Hebrew text (so that punctuation is according to your opinion).
Yes the two durations can be summed up to equate 69 'sevens'.
What about Cyrus? How do you reconcile him and his coming after seven weeks?

This is how I explained the components of the sixty-nine 'sevens':
9:25b there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'.
[total: sixty-nine 'sevens'. The "seven" is being God's number and the "sixty-two" was "justified" by 5:31 "Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two." The otherwise trivial and superfluous "at the age of sixty-two" was probably added by Daniel-2. Overall, the author tried to "sanctify" sixty-nine (7 + 62), which is far from being a divine number.

Whether I'm right or not, my understanding is that the one referred to as "a prince an anointed" in 9:25 is Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, the priest written about by Haggai and Zechariah at the building of the temple. He was the crowned figure in Zech 6:9-14 after the disappearance of Zerubbabel. In all probability it was Zerubbabel who was the crowned figure, but the Zech text has been rewritten to have it as Jeshua who has a priest by his throne. Jeshua is both a prince here and an anointed one (as high priest).

So now, two days later, you changed Cyrus the Great to Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, because your present understanding (which you don't know if it is right or not!). But how do you reconcile that Jeshua ben Jehozedeq with the seven weeks?
And you plead for a rewriting of Zechariah, in order to have that Jeshua be also a prince.

The attempt to turn Jason into the anointed one fails certainly because the cultural current in which the vision was written would certainly not call Jason "anointed". It is a conservative circle that talks of the anointed one as the prince of the (heavenly) host in 8:10, not a figure who permitted the education of Jewish boys parading naked in a Greek school. The anointed one doesn't re-enter Jerusalem (in 9:26) as Jason does. The last week starts after the anointed one is cut off. 9:26 squeezes in at the end of the 69th week not the beginning of the 70th, which starts with 9:27. Jason was stopped three years into the last week. He is not there in 9:25-27. He would have been anathema to the writers and not accepted as an anointed (high priest). The conservative section of the priesthood fled Jerusalem and apparently joined Judas, 1 Macc 3:49a, the only reason the priestly vestments, first fruits and tithes could be in the hands of the rebellion. They were against Jason.

You judge Jason according to modern views. But as I explained, because he was the legitimate high priest, of the quasi-dynastic Zadokite line, and definively a ruler, he still was an anointed prince, regardless of the crimes he committed.
And the author of that part of 'Daniel', very likely was thinking that way.
Let's take an example here: Even if someone does not like Trump because of his actions, past & present, his character, his flip-flops, his policies and accusing him of lying, fake news, etc., he is still the President. And he would be deposed in a coup, this someone, who disliked Trump for many reasons, could still defend him because he was the legitimate President.
And the author of Daniel (second part) was very much hellenized himself (just as our Jason). He featured God as presiding over lesser gods and princes (including archangel Michael), and a demi-god friendly to the Jews.

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

You did not reconcile either Cyrus the Great or Jeshua ben Jehozedeq with your seven weeks, but I certainly did reconcile Jason with the sixty-nine 'sevens', up to the exact year.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

So now I become one of the Christian fundamentalists because I don't believe in your punctuation (;),

The post wasn't written to you. Just extract the facts.

which does not exist in the Hebrew text (so that punctuation is according to your opinion).

Don't be silly. The punctuation is in 95% of the translations into English, those translations you depend on. I work from an understanding of the Hebrew and the syntax precludes this addition nonsense. It is merely Hebrew style to bring phrases together in parallelisms so that one might finish a clause and another will start the next.

Yes the two durations can be summed up to equate 69 'sevens'.

Then deal with it. What happened at the end of the seven weeks and before the 62? The text says that's when a prince an anointed appeared.

What about Cyrus? How do you reconcile him and his coming after seven weeks?

To me, Cyrus (see below) is the one who gave the word at the beginning to rebuild. This is irrelevant to the language structure you are trying to circumvent because you've been habituated to the summing of the two durations.

This is how I explained the components of the sixty-nine 'sevens':
9:25b there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'.
[total: sixty-nine 'sevens'. The "seven" is being God's number and the "sixty-two" was "justified" by 5:31 "Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two." The otherwise trivial and superfluous "at the age of sixty-two" was probably added by Daniel-2. Overall, the author tried to "sanctify" sixty-nine (7 + 62), which is far from being a divine number.

This is all eisegesis. Forget this unnatural reading that is buzzing around your head about adding the two durations together and read the text naturally. Here it is again:

Clause #1: "from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the prince the anointed there shall be seven weeks;"
Clause #2: "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be constructed again with streets and moat, but in troubled time."

Seven weeks measures the duration until the time of the prince the anointed, when the temple was built (under Yeshua). This is followed by 62 weeks while the city stands built. After that an anointed one is cut off. That is what the text says. No silly additions.

Whether I'm right or not, my understanding is that the one referred to as "a prince an anointed" in 9:25 is Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, the priest written about by Haggai and Zechariah at the building of the temple. He was the crowned figure in Zech 6:9-14 after the disappearance of Zerubbabel. In all probability it was Zerubbabel who was the crowned figure, but the Zech text has been rewritten to have it as Jeshua who has a priest by his throne. Jeshua is both a prince here and an anointed one (as high priest).

So now, two days later, you changed Cyrus the Great to Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, because your present understanding (which you don't know if it is right or not!). But how do you reconcile that Jeshua ben Jehozedeq with the seven weeks?
And you plead for a rewriting of Zechariah, in order to have that Jeshua be also a prince.

Read the text: Zechariah puts Jeshua on the throne. (The rewriting is published scholarly analysis. And sorry that that confused you. Just forget it, until you do the scholarly reading.) I don't advocate Cyrus as the prince the anointed. You just caught a brainfart by me. Like I just suddenly jumped ship to Yeshua and came up with the Zechariah stuff, not. (See this post talking to you seven months and twenty-seven months ago, which features "Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence anointed prince." We've had this waltz before. You couldn't deal with the syntax of the two clauses with durations then and you can't now.)

The attempt to turn Jason into the anointed one fails certainly because the cultural current in which the vision was written would certainly not call Jason "anointed". It is a conservative circle that talks of the anointed one as the prince of the (heavenly) host in 8:10, not a figure who permitted the education of Jewish boys parading naked in a Greek school. The anointed one doesn't re-enter Jerusalem (in 9:26) as Jason does. The last week starts after the anointed one is cut off. 9:26 squeezes in at the end of the 69th week not the beginning of the 70th, which starts with 9:27. Jason was stopped three years into the last week. He is not there in 9:25-27. He would have been anathema to the writers and not accepted as an anointed (high priest). The conservative section of the priesthood fled Jerusalem and apparently joined Judas, 1 Macc 3:49a, the only reason the priestly vestments, first fruits and tithes could be in the hands of the rebellion. They were against Jason.

You judge Jason according to modern views.

That is your unfounded projection.

But as I explained, because he was the legitimate high priest, of the quasi-dynastic Zadokite line, and definively a ruler, he still was an anointed prince, regardless of the crimes he committed.

He is not a prince at all. He is the brother of the murdered Onias III and was accepted for a while until he pissed on the conservative wing of the Jews, ie the lot behind texts such as Daniel.

And the author of that part of 'Daniel', very likely was thinking that way.

You have no reason to think this.

Let's take an example here: Even if someone does not like Trump because of his actions, past & present, his character, his flip-flops, his policies and accusing him of lying, fake news, etc., he is still the President. And he would be deposed in a coup, this someone, who disliked Trump for many reasons, could still defend him because he was the legitimate President.
And the author of Daniel (second part) was very much hellenized himself (just as our Jason). He featured God as presiding over lesser gods and princes (including archangel Michael), and a demi-god friendly to the Jews.

This all seems without basis.

From http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html:
The book of Daniel shows how much Hellenized a form of (heretical?) Judaism had become, another sure indication about the late writing.
As example, the God of Daniel is "the Prince of princes" (Da8:25) and "the God of gods" (11:36). The existence of other (good) gods is fully acknowledged:
Da11:37-38a NIV "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown of his fathers ..."

This doesn't say what you want it to. It merely points out that Antiochus III didn't follow his traditions.

One of these gods is described making his own decisions:
NIV 10:20-11:1 "No one support me against them except Michael, your prince [even archangel Michael seems to act on his own!]. And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him"

Gods?? Michael is the one like a son of man (ie angel) in 7:13, the one who specifically watches over the Jews and defends them. That's what he is doing in chapter 10, confronting the prince of Persia. But let me cut of this sidetrack.

You did not reconcile either Cyrus the Great or Jeshua ben Jehozedeq with your seven weeks, but I certainly did reconcile Jason with the sixty-nine 'sevens', up to the exact year.

That's pretty nonsensical, Bernard. But I guess if you are so confused about Daniel as you evince, you'll continue to be so. The summing of the seven weeks and the 62 weeks is absurd. Find me a precedent in Jewish biblical literature. You know you can't and that tells you that the notion is sterile. Read the text naturally and stop making blunders.

Let me add that you should not attempt to make language arguments based on a language you don't have access to. The scholarly translations I pointed to, ie the RSV tradition and the JPS tradition make clear the separation between the two dates. Trust them over the rubbish you use. The NIV? Jesus it doesn't pass my crap test, which involves a number of well-known tendentious translation issues. This one of fostering the addition of the durations is just one of the NIV's crimes. Until you can supply a rational reason for the unprecedented adding of the seven and the sixty-two, you need to shelve the idea. The conjecture and woo on the addition that you presented above doesn't cut it.

Further addition, a post from The old Infidels forum. Note just the highlighted section:

Forum: IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003) Thread: Immaculate Conception? Post#:608126 Date:Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:40:00 -0600 Christians have to believe that Daniel deals with things that are still to come, because the religion has made such a mess of the book. However, the book of Daniel was related to a historical context, which almost all scholarly commentaries will explain. Daniel is related to another book written in the early second century BCE called 1 Enoch (or at least a part of that book). They both feature a figure who looks at history from a distant past and presents the history in disguise as prophecy both down to the rebellion led by Judas the Maccabee against the Greeks. Daniel 11 is the longest continuous history of the relations between the Greeks of Syria and those of Egypt, the kings of the north and the kings of the south. You can follow blow by blow the historical events between the Syrians and the Egyptians, the wars and the changes of ruler as listed in Daniel 11, merely by referring to a history of the period. But there is more, ch 7 has a mini-history of the various kingdoms from the Babylonians, the beast like a lion with wings, the Medians, a beast which looked like a bear, the Persians, a beast which looked like a leopard, and finally the Greeks, as a beast which looked like an elephant, not strange this last, because the Greeks used elephants in warfare. The last representative of the Greeks is a little horn which uprooted three others. This is Antiochus IV who came to the throne after there had been a coup which involved the death of his brother, his son and a usurper. This Antiochus was also the last king of the north mentioned in ch 11, and was responsible for the pollution of the temple. Ch 8 relooks at the same period, using the image of the ram with two horns, one coming first then one later (Medes then Persians), and the goat with the one horn (Greeks, and particularly Alexander). The Greeks dissolved into the four kingdoms out of one of which came out little horn once again. He pollutes the temple and overthrows the priesthood. Without a resolution this dates the text to between 167 and 164 BCE. Ch 9 has the seventy weeks midrash of Jeremiah, which attempts to give a history of Israel from the time of the start of the exile to the present. Seven weeks of years marks the end of the exile and the arrival of Jeshua in Jerusalem (he is the high priest who returned with Zerubbabel, and is hence the anointed one, as are all high priests). From that time passes the 62 weeks which lead to the destitution of the high priest Onias III by the Greeks (Antiochus IV once again) and we are in the last week of the prophecy, which marks once again the pollution of the temple. Antiochus had the Jerusalem temple rededicated for pagan worship in his attempt at hellenisation of the Jews. This is how the abomination comes into the story, as a statue of the god was probably erected as in all other Greek temples. Daniel is concentrated on a period which terminates in 164 BCE before the temple is recaptured and cleaned of the desecration. It deals with the same material four times in four different visions, looking at different aspects of it. Josephus recognizes the relationship between Daniel and the Hellenistic Crisis (see the end of Antiquities 10,11,7). Porphyry daling with Christians poured scorn on the Christians for abusing Daniel without understanding the text. It would seem nothing much has changed with the majority. This is because one is constrained to believe the Jesus represented in the gospel who gets Dan 7 confused. I don't say that Jesus actually said it. I merely talk of the gospel writers and of course the industry the cropped up in Christianity which reused Jewish writings for purposes other than for what they were written. However, Christian scholars are well aware of the Daniel material. This is why I recommend that one turn to a scholarly commentary of Daniel, not a "believer's" version, but one by a scholar of repute in the field (for example J.J. Collins, but there are numerous others).

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,
We had a very long long long discussion on this topic on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=613&hilit=an+offsho ... ing#p12251
And I think my arguments for my case are more valid than ever.

Then deal with it. What happened at the end of the seven weeks and before the 62? The text says that's when a prince an anointed appeared.

On the aforementioned thread, you take "weeks" as meaning periods of seven years, a "prince an anointed" as being Jeshua son of Josedek. That means that Jeshua, the high priest of the time (but not a prince or ruler), would have appeared 49 years after Cyrus' decree. But that Jeshua (in 'Ezra') is shown to be in Jerusalem during the rule of Cyrus (538-530 BC). Deal with it!

Seven weeks measures the duration until the time of the prince the anointed, when the temple was built (under Yeshua). This is followed by 62 weeks while the city stands built. After that an anointed one is cut off. That is what the text says. No silly additions.

Well these 62 weeks would be 434 years for you, bringing us to 538 - (49+434) = 55 BC, not exactly the time for this anointed one, which you take as being Onias III, to be cut off in 175 BC.
That's a 120 years difference.

Read the text: Zechariah puts Jeshua on the throne. (The rewriting is published scholarly analysis. And sorry that that confused you. Just forget it, until you do the scholarly reading.) I don't advocate Cyrus as the prince the anointed. You just caught a brainfart by me. Like I just suddenly jumped ship to Yeshua and came up with the Zechariah stuff, not. (See this post talking to you seven months and twenty-seven months ago, which features "Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence anointed prince." We've had this waltz before. You couldn't deal with the syntax of the two clauses with durations then and you can't now.)

In Zechariah 6, the many crowns are set on the head of Jeshua, but "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD" and the one who will rebuilt the temple, the future king, will not be Jeshua.
I do not see why you assume Jeshua became a prince, a ruler. Zechariah did not say that.

That is your unfounded projection.

On the contrary, my projection is well founded on Jason. You are judging Jason along modern thinking. But someone concerned about the temple with a high priest (therefore anointed) from the Zadokite line, would still consider that Jason, the high priest as the legitimate anointed one and a ruler (because he had an army & ruled Jerusalem for a while).
Jason was hellenized but a Jew at the same time. The same about the author of Daniel part 2.
Jason committed atrocities, but our author did not say anything good about Jason, just acknowledging he was anointed and a ruler (right on both counts).

This all seems without basis.

But it is in 'Daniel': acknowledgment of (good) gods, God (Prince of princes) presiding over gods, a demi-god friendly to the Jews, but not accepting God as his God, etc.

The summing of the seven weeks and the 62 weeks is absurd

But the author of 'Daniel' did that "And after the sixty-two weeks" (9:26) plus the "seven weeks" (9:25) brings us the "seventy weeks" (9:24)
See also Dan 7:25 "He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."
Are you saying what I bolded is not meant to sum up to 3.5 times?
Are you postulating some event had to be between a time and two times OR between two times and half a time?

The scholarly translations I pointed to, ie the RSV tradition and the JPS tradition make clear the separation between the two dates

But other translations, which are as much scholarly, do not have that separation. Also some of these translations accept that "weeks" can be translated by "sevens" in Dan 9:24,25,26.
This separation does not show in the LXX, which was written many centuries before the masoretic texts were issued.
My theory is the separation was introduced in the masoretic text in order to discourage Christians to see the two anointed ones as referring to Jesus (as did Sextus Julius Africanus).

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,
We had a very long long long discussion on this topic on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=613&hilit=an+offsho ... ing#p12251
And I think my arguments for my case are more valid than ever.

It would be good if thinking made it so.

Then deal with it. What happened at the end of the seven weeks and before the 62? The text says that's when a prince an anointed appeared.

On the aforementioned thread, you take "weeks" as meaning periods of seven years, a "prince an anointed" as being Jeshua son of Josedek. That means that Jeshua, the high priest of the time (but not a prince or ruler), would have appeared 49 years after Cyrus' decree. But that Jeshua (in 'Ezra') is shown to be in Jerusalem during the rule of Cyrus (538-530 BC). Deal with it!

Sadly, Ezra is a secondary work cobbled out of the Hebrew Vorlage to 1 Esdras. Ezra doesn't show that the first wave of exiles under Sheshbazzar is distinct from the second wave under Zerubbabel and Yeshua. However, Zerubbabel is introduced in the reign of Darius in 1 Esd 4:13.

Seven weeks measures the duration until the time of the prince the anointed, when the temple was built (under Yeshua). This is followed by 62 weeks while the city stands built. After that an anointed one is cut off. That is what the text says. No silly additions.

Well these 62 weeks would be 434 years for you, bringing us to 538 - (49+434) = 55 BC, not exactly the time for this anointed one, which you take as being Onias III, to be cut off in 175 BC.
That's a 120 years difference.

You are hoping that the writers are accurate when they only give four Persian kings down to Alexander (11:2)? I have never been that trusting that such writers could be as accurate as you and the fundies want them to be. You expect some accuracy for the last part of the vaticinium ex eventu, because readers need to see who are being referred to, as it involves their lifetimes. That's the bit that interests the writers.

Read the text: Zechariah puts Jeshua on the throne. (The rewriting is published scholarly analysis. And sorry that that confused you. Just forget it, until you do the scholarly reading.) I don't advocate Cyrus as the prince the anointed. You just caught a brainfart by me. Like I just suddenly jumped ship to Yeshua and came up with the Zechariah stuff, not. (See this post talking to you seven months and twenty-seven months ago, which features "Yeshua ben Yehozedek and referred to apparently after the fall of Zerubbabel, when he took the secular role as well, hence anointed prince." We've had this waltz before. You couldn't deal with the syntax of the two clauses with durations then and you can't now.)

In Zechariah 6, the many crowns are set on the head of Jeshua, but "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD" and the one who will rebuilt the temple, the future king, will not be Jeshua.
I do not see why you assume Jeshua became a prince, a ruler. Zechariah did not say that.

He did, when he said Yeshua "shall bear royal honor and sit upon his throne and rule" (6:13). (And no, not many crowns. In Zech 4:14 there are still two anointed ones, Zerubbabel and Yeshua. Although it was only Yeshua who is crowned, he gets both. Zerubbabel had disappeared between 4:14 and 6:11.)

You judge Jason according to modern views.

That is your unfounded projection.

On the contrary, my projection is well founded on Jason. You are judging Jason along modern thinking. But someone concerned about the temple with a high priest (therefore anointed) from the Zadokite line, would still consider that Jason, the high priest as the legitimate anointed one and a ruler (because he had an army & ruled Jerusalem for a while).
Jason was hellenized but a Jew at the same time. The same about the author of Daniel part 2.
Jason committed atrocities, but our author did not say anything good about Jason, just acknowledging he was anointed and a ruler (right on both counts).

There is no improvement here on your initial assertion. It just demonstrates that you are making an unfounded projection... when you claim that I "judge Jason according to modern views." Daniel clearly favors Onias III, who is the anointed one cut off before the last week. Jason appears during that last week, ie he cannot be this anointed one.

The prince of the covenant, the name of the figure in 11:23 is broken before Antiochus III goes to Egypt. Again, not Jason.

This all seems without basis.

But it is in 'Daniel': acknowledgment of (good) gods, God (Prince of princes) presiding over gods, a demi-god friendly to the Jews, but not accepting God as his God, etc.

Although I don't agree with you, I indicated in my last post that I thought this was tangential to our discussion. It still seems that way.

The summing of the seven weeks and the 62 weeks is absurd

But the author of 'Daniel' did that "And after the sixty-two weeks" (9:26) plus the "seven weeks" (9:25) brings us the "seventy weeks" (9:24)

It seems we aren't talking about the same things. I'm talking about the fact that a prince an anointed came after seven weeks, which is specifically what the text says and I have shown you twice. Here, a third time and respond to it this time:

Clause #1: "from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the prince the anointed there shall be seven weeks;"
Clause #2: "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be constructed again with streets and moat, but in troubled time."

(Parenthetically, if you attempt to sum those two durations together in order to conflate the anointed prince with the anointed one of 9:26, then you remove the linkage in the second clause and leave it grammatically adrift, not attached to anything. The linkage that exists is the "and" before the sixty-two weeks: it links the second clause to the narrative structure. You have to read the sixty-two weeks as separate from the seven weeks. That means that the prince the anointed came before the sixty-two weeks.)

See also Dan 7:25 "He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."
Are you saying what I bolded is not meant to sum up to 3.5 times?
Are you postulating some event had to be between a time and two times OR between two times and half a time?

Jeez, Bernard. You have a list of noun phrases in Hebrew. There is no comparison with the two clauses in 9:25.

The scholarly translations I pointed to, ie the RSV tradition and the JPS tradition make clear the separation between the two dates

But other translations, which are as much scholarly, do not have that separation. Also some of these translations accept that "weeks" can be translated by "sevens" in Dan 9:24,25,26.
This separation does not show in the LXX, which was written many centuries before the masoretic texts were issued.
My theory is the separation was introduced in the masoretic text in order to discourage Christians to see the two anointed ones as referring to Jesus (as did Sextus Julius Africanus).

Sorry, but there's actually no argument here, as the opposite doesn't have less weight, ie that the christian-preserved Greek represents a christian perspective.

As I pointed out before and it is a fact you did not respond to, the anointed one in 9:26 was cut off before the last week, which started in 9:27. Onias III was the one cut off. Jason was still alive in the first years of that last week. He cannot be the anointed one of 9:26. He is the figure 2 Macc 4:7 recalls as having obtained the high priesthood by corruption. He was responsible for negotiating Greek ways for Jerusalem to the horror of the conservatives. 1 Macc 1:14-15 doesn't mention Jason but show the result of Jason's efforts, including efforts to remove signs of circumcision, the sign of the "holy covenant".

The writers of Daniel are conservatives that could not accept such things, as believers in the "holy covenant". It would seem that Antiochus's action against "those who forsake the holy covenant" (Dan 11:30c) happens at the time Antiochus returns from Egypt enraged by being checked by the Romans and vents his anger on the Jews, which was just when Jason was making his comeback and was dealt with.

The status quo scholarly notion that Onias III is the anointed one makes sense of the clues. Jason does not.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

However, Zerubbabel is introduced in the reign of Darius in 1 Esd 4:13.

Zerubbabel is introduced in Judah right after Cyrus issued his proclamation in 538 BC (Esd 2:2).
Zerubbabel is still in Jerusalem during the beginning of the reign of Darius in Esd 5:2

You are hoping that the writers are accurate when they only give four Persian kings down to Alexander (11:2)?

"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." (Dan 11:2)
That comes after the fictional Darius the Mede (whom the author of Daniel part 2 inherited from the author of Daniel part 1, and had to take in account), and the three Persians kings would be Cyrus the Great, Cambyses, Bardiya.
The fourth one is obviously Darius I, the first of the Persian kings to go against the city states of Greece.
The next two verses refer to Alexander the Great:
"And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will
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." (Dan 11:3-4)
But I do not see why you accuse the author of not knowing about the Persian kings following Darius I, presented as the greatest of the Persian kings and of great interest for our author. The author never said Alexander immediately followed Darius I and terminated him & his empire. He only said Alexander came (some time) after Darius I.

He did, when he said Yeshua "shall bear royal honor and sit upon his throne and rule" (6:13). (And no, not many crowns. In Zech 4:14 there are still two anointed ones, Zerubbabel and Yeshua. Although it was only Yeshua who is crowned, he gets both. Zerubbabel had disappeared between 4:14 and 6:11.)

Zec 6:11b-13a RSV "...Joshua, the son of Jehoz'adak, the high priest;
and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.
It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, ..."
Here Joshua is being told by God to expect "the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD". That does not say Joshua is that man.
And being anointed does not mean you have to become a ruler. High priests were anointed.
Furthermore, Zechariah's prophecies are just wishful thinking and does not have to reflect history.

Daniel clearly favors Onias III, who is the anointed one cut off before the last week. Jason appears during that last week, ie he cannot be this anointed one.

Probably, but that does not mean the author of Daniel part 2 did not have Jason in mind for his anointed one who got cut off (as rejected, banished) in 167 BC, as I calculated it (for me the last week is the last year). By that time, it was several years ago that Onias III had been cut off.

The prince of the covenant, the name of the figure in 11:23 is broken before Antiochus III goes to Egypt. Again, not Jason.

Yes, I agree. But that was before Antiochus goes to Egypt for the first time.
Jason took Jerusalem and rule over it when Antiochus went to Egypt the second time.

Clause #2: "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be constructed again with streets and moat, but in troubled time."

You are still going with streets. Streets are not open space, but plaza and squares (as translated by the RSV) are more appropriate. And your translation makes it sounds it took 434 years to rebuild Jerusalem, which is wrong.
And the same RSV gave us "seventy weeks of years" (9:24). "of years" does not exist in the Hebrew and LXX texts.

The linkage that exists is the "and" before the sixty-two weeks: it links the second clause to the narrative structure

I have no problem with that. For what you wrote before and after in the paragraph, I have no idea what you are saying.

As I pointed out before and it is a fact you did not respond to, the anointed one in 9:26 was cut off before the last week, which started in 9:27. Onias III was the one cut off. Jason was still alive in the first years of that last week. He cannot be the anointed one of 9:26. He is the figure 2 Macc 4:7 recalls as having obtained the high priesthood by corruption. He was responsible for negotiating Greek ways for Jerusalem to the horror of the conservatives. 1 Macc 1:14-15 doesn't mention Jason but show the result of Jason's efforts, including efforts to remove signs of circumcision, the sign of the "holy covenant".

The last week is for me the last year, that is 167 BC. Onias II is long gone by then. Of course, you consider last week as meaning last seven years, but as shown in my previous post, the math from your understanding of weeks totally destroyed your theory (the seventy weeks would bring you to 55 BC). My calculation fits perfectly Jason.

Cordially, Bernard