The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

[spin]

to spin,

Period, indeed. You are still pretending to try to do history with the material. Zechariah scrubbed Zerubbabel from the scene, leaving only Yeshua being crowned with two crowns. Don't you understand this? Zechariah leaves the Jewish tradition with the notion of Yeshua as ruler.

You are dead wrong. The fact that Zerubbabel is not mentioned in Zec 6 does not prove anything. I already demonstrated that when Zechariah wrote Ch. 1 to 7, Zerubbabel was alive and well in Jerusalem because he was expected to complete the temple.

You've demonstrated nothing relevant other than your refusal to read Zech 6 for what it indicates, including the fact that Zerubbabel is notably absent and that Yeshua receives not one crown but both crowns.

But no, the situation in Israel was not rather stable, with an evolving tradition of high priests

Just different lists of high priests does not make the situation in Israel unstable during the 2nd temple era up to Antiochus IV.

You blundered into the topic of high priests and it blew up in your face. Your assumptions about the preservation of the Jewish past are baseless, as baseless as the trustworthiness of the priestly lists. It is wrong to assume historical accuracy. You must demonstrate it... for a culture with no tradition of historiography. (A functional historiography was pioneered by Herodotus and didn't filter into Judah for centuries.)

And there is no reason to think there was not an uninterrupted succession of high priests in Jerusalem.

No question about succession of high priests. You dragged the priests into it for their veracity, but it is inherently untrustworthy.

Further the info about dating the building of the second temple and when Cyrus' first year over Babylon could be transmitted by scribes to younger scribes. There is no way that kind of info, pertaining to the dear sacred temple, would be overlooked and not worth to be remembered & recorded.

Just another baseless assertion. We see the lack of accuracy frequently... four kings of Persia! Was Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I or Xerxes I or some other Persian king? You cannot assume accuracy or pretend it's there. You need to demonstrate it, though the evidence is against your assertion.

You were caught out with the numerals and stuck with words. Now you've changed your discourse to "a few annotations." There is nothing scientific in your approach.

Nothing new. I already told on this thread of annotations on the sand. These annotations would be just to keep track of the tabulation of the "seven".

A methodology you conceived. That's another example of eisegesis.

The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.

If that was the covenant, so how come it was proclaimed to many? Menelaus is not many.

The "many" are those who are not part of the chosen "remnant", those against the will of God. It is typical Hebrew rhetoric.

It is representing the Hebrew better. Duration, as I have said, in Hebrew is indicated without preposition. We need one in English. You are arguing here form ignorance. Almost every time you depend on a translated word for your argument it is wrong.

Maybe, but the "for" in the translation can be replaced by "at" as in "and at half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings" (ISV except "at").

You are a forced to follow whichever translation you want to be correct. There is no "for" as you have trumpeted. There is no "at". There is only "half of the week". Throughout the vision the writers have used durations and some christian translators decide that this phrase which appears like a duration is not a duration but a point in time. Instead of jockeying translators regarding linguistic structure, trust the known scholarly translations, the NRSV and the NJPS to get it right most of the time.

The last week marks the duration of a covenant with many, which will be strong/prevail one week. Half the—that same—week (I'll try to be literal here), he [the prince who is to come] will cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates, until destruction... is poured out on the one who desolates. The word indicated here as "corner" has a base meaning of "wing" which causes difficulty in translation, as the variety of versions show. But the temporal indications are straightforward, two durations, one week and half of that week. The translator has to overcome other difficulties including making sense of other terms (such as "wing") and the christianizing interpretation of the passage and so the translation is compromised.

You cannot make arguments based heavily on other people's translations, especially when the passage is complicated by language or theological disposition. Your whole case regarding Dan 9:25-27 seems to be you doing just that.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

You've demonstrated nothing relevant other than your refusal to read Zech 6 for what it indicates, including the fact that Zerubbabel is notably absent and that Yeshua receives not one crown but both crowns.

Actually, Yeshua received at least four crowns which 3 verses later are distributed:
JPS Tanakh 1917 Zec 6:14 "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in the temple of the LORD."
I do not see what can be so notable about "Zerubbabel" being absent in Zec 6. I think you have here a very weak point based on silence and you seem desperate into trying to have that Jeshua a prince/ruler also, so he can be your "an anointed prince" in Dan 9:25. And all that 49 years after Cyrus' decree, when that receiving of crowns would happen only 19 years after that decree.
Furthermore Zerubbabel is in Zec 6, not by his name, but a man called Branch who will rebuild the temple, as Zerubbabel is expected to do in Zech 4:9. Also Zerubbabel is a descendant of David, so the name Branch (see Jer 23:5 & 33:15), but Jeshua is not.

You blundered into the topic of high priests and it blew up in your face. Your assumptions about the preservation of the Jewish past are baseless, as baseless as the trustworthiness of the priestly lists. It is wrong to assume historical accuracy. You must demonstrate it... for a culture with no tradition of historiography. (A functional historiography was pioneered by Herodotus and didn't filter into Judah for centuries.)

However "Daniel" of part 2 in very accurate and detailed from Alexander the Great up to Antiochus IV's times in Dan 11:3 to 11:20. And different high priests lists have nothing to do about the relative date of Cyrus' first year over Babylon.
Actually, the differences are not great:

Joshua, son of Jehozadak, c. 515-490 BC, after the restoration of the Temple
Joiakim, son of Joshua, c. 490-470 BC
Eliashib, son of Joiakim, c. 470-433 BC
Joiada, son of Eliashib, c. 433-410 BC
(A son married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite for which he was driven out of the Temple by Nehemiah)
Johanan, son of Joiada, c. 410-371 BC
Jaddua, son of Johanan, c. 371-320 BC, during the reign of Alexander the Great. Some have identified him as Simeon the Just.

The five descendants of Joshua are mentioned in Nehemiah, chapter 12, 10f. The chronology given above, based on Josephus, however is not undisputed, with some alternatively placing Jaddua during the time of Darius II and some supposing one more Johanan and one more Jaddua in the following time, the latter Jaddua being contemporary of Alexander the Great.

Onias I, son of Jaddua, c. 320-280 BC
Simon I, son of Onias, c. 280-260 BC Josephus identified him as Simeon the Just[8]
Eleazar, son of Onias, c. 260-245 BC
Manasseh, son of Jaddua, c. 245-240 BC
Onias II, son of Simon, c. 240-218 BC
Simon II, son of Onias, 218-185 BC
Onias III, son of Simon, 185-175 BC, murdered 170 BC
Jason, son of Simon, 175-172 BC
Menelaus, 172-162 BC
Onias IV, son of Onias III, fled to Egypt and built a Jewish Temple at Leontopolis (closed in 66 AD)
Alcimus, 162-159 BC

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_H ... _of_Israel)

Furthermore 1 & 2 kings provide the list of Davidic kings and the ones of Israel, the norther kingdom, after the split following Solomon's death, complete with details on their reign, including durations. 2 Kings also connect some of these kings with foreign kings such as Necho of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
Don't you think the literate Jews of 167 BC could not trace important dates of the fall of Jerusalem and Cyrus' conquest of Babylon (with the beginning of liberated Jewish slaves coming back home) from their ancestors or from books (perhaps only in Greek) about the actions of these foreign kings. Many of them were hellenized and would know Greek. You seem to think these Jews were cavemen.

Bernard Muller wrote:

The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.

If that was the covenant, so how come it was proclaimed to many? Menelaus is not many.

The "many" are those who are not part of the chosen "remnant", those against the will of God. It is typical Hebrew rhetoric.

If it was the covenant to Menelaus, it was not to many.

Throughout the vision the writers have used durations and some christian translators decide that this phrase which appears like a duration is not a duration but a point in time. Instead of jockeying translators regarding linguistic structure, trust the known scholarly translations, the NRSV and the NJPS to get it right most of the time.

It depends. If "half this week" is a point of time, "at" may be warranted:

The last week marks the duration of a covenant with many, which will be strong/prevail one week. Half the—that same—week (I'll try to be literal here), he [the prince who is to come] will "cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates, until destruction... is poured out on the one who desolates.

And "cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates," can describe two initial actions, even if the result of these actions will last a long time (up to the death of Antiochus, but the Jewish sacrifices at the temple restarted one year after his death).

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

You've demonstrated nothing relevant other than your refusal to read Zech 6 for what it indicates, including the fact that Zerubbabel is notably absent and that Yeshua receives not one crown but both crowns.

Actually, Yeshua received at least four crowns which 3 verses later are distributed:
JPS Tanakh 1917 Zec 6:14 "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in the temple of the LORD."

Rubbish. You know you shouldn't try to argue text sensitive issues from translations. There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.

I do not see what can be so notable about "Zerubbabel" being absent in Zec 6.

Who does the text say got crowned?

I think you have here a very weak point based on silence and you seem desperate into trying to have that Jeshua a prince/ruler also, so he can be your "an anointed prince" in Dan 9:25. And all that 49 years after Cyrus' decree, when that receiving of crowns would happen only 19 years after that decree.
Furthermore Zerubbabel is in Zec 6, not by his name, but a man called Branch who will rebuild the temple, as Zerubbabel is expected to do in Zech 4:9. Also Zerubbabel is a descendant of David, so the name Branch (see Jer 23:5 & 33:15), but Jeshua is not.

Still bashing yourself up with the same unfounded assumptions. Zerubbabel is nowhere named, yet Zechariah has no problem naming him. He is not in the text.

You blundered into the topic of high priests and it blew up in your face. Your assumptions about the preservation of the Jewish past are baseless, as baseless as the trustworthiness of the priestly lists. It is wrong to assume historical accuracy. You must demonstrate it... for a culture with no tradition of historiography. (A functional historiography was pioneered by Herodotus and didn't filter into Judah for centuries.)

However "Daniel" of part 2 in very accurate and detailed from Alexander the Great up to Antiochus IV's times in Dan 11:3 to 11:20. And different high priests lists have nothing to do about the relative date of Cyrus' first year over Babylon.

Here's what you said concerning high priests:

More so when between the rebuilding of the temple and the times of Antiochus IV, the situation in Israel was rather stable, with a whole succession of high priests.

You introduced high priests into the discourse, with a whole succession of them! It was inaccurate.

You are simply wrong about detailed information from Alexander the Great up to Antiochus IV's times in Dan 11:3 to 11:20. I've already indicated that it is detailed only from the ascension of Antiochus III, noting the first 100 year of Seleucid reign is covered in 11:5-9, while the next 56 years in 11:10-35+. The problem is the further back you go the harder it is to investigate. Daniel shows almost no knowledge of the period of Nebuchadnezzar, didn't know Nabonidus, is confused about the Medes, but starts coming good in the sixty years before writing.

Actually, the differences are not great:

Joshua, son of Jehozadak, c. 515-490 BC, after the restoration of the Temple
Joiakim, son of Joshua, c. 490-470 BC
Eliashib, son of Joiakim, c. 470-433 BC
Joiada, son of Eliashib, c. 433-410 BC
(A son married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite for which he was driven out of the Temple by Nehemiah)
Johanan, son of Joiada, c. 410-371 BC
Jaddua, son of Johanan, c. 371-320 BC, during the reign of Alexander the Great. Some have identified him as Simeon the Just.

The five descendants of Joshua are mentioned in Nehemiah, chapter 12, 10f. The chronology given above, based on Josephus, however is not undisputed, with some alternatively placing Jaddua during the time of Darius II and some supposing one more Johanan and one more Jaddua in the following time, the latter Jaddua being contemporary of Alexander the Great.

Onias I, son of Jaddua, c. 320-280 BC
Simon I, son of Onias, c. 280-260 BC Josephus identified him as Simeon the Just[8]
Eleazar, son of Onias, c. 260-245 BC
Manasseh, son of Jaddua, c. 245-240 BC
Onias II, son of Simon, c. 240-218 BC
Simon II, son of Onias, 218-185 BC
Onias III, son of Simon, 185-175 BC, murdered 170 BC
Jason, son of Simon, 175-172 BC
Menelaus, 172-162 BC
Onias IV, son of Onias III, fled to Egypt and built a Jewish Temple at Leontopolis (closed in 66 AD)
Alcimus, 162-159 BC

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_H ... _of_Israel)

Furthermore 1 & 2 kings provide the list of Davidic kings and the ones of Israel, the norther kingdom, after the split following Solomon's death, complete with details on their reign, including durations. 2 Kings also connect some of these kings with foreign kings such as Necho of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
Don't you think the literate Jews of 167 BC could not trace important dates of the fall of Jerusalem and Cyrus' conquest of Babylon (with the beginning of liberated Jewish slaves coming back home) from their ancestors or from books (perhaps only in Greek) about the actions of these foreign kings. Many of them were hellenized and would know Greek. You seem to think these Jews were cavemen.

So instead of looking at the data I supplied for the accuracy of the succession of high priests, you ignored it totally. You have wasted your time proceeding that way. I know how to use Wikipedia.

The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.

If that was the covenant, so how come it was proclaimed to many? Menelaus is not many.

The "many" are those who are not part of the chosen "remnant", those against the will of God. It is typical Hebrew rhetoric.

If it was the covenant to Menelaus, it was not to many.

Now that is responding substantively to what was said? You ignored it. Note the pattern.

Throughout the vision the writers have used durations and some christian translators decide that this phrase which appears like a duration is not a duration but a point in time. Instead of jockeying translators regarding linguistic structure, trust the known scholarly translations, the NRSV and the NJPS to get it right most of the time.

It depends. If "half this week" is a point of time, "at" may be warranted:

Go back to your cited examples and note the use of prepositions in Hebrew. The point gets a preposition in Hebrew. There is no preposition in 9:27.

Why the hell do you keep blundering into the Hebrew when you know you are known not to know anything about it? (And will not learn.)

The last week marks the duration of a covenant with many, which will be strong/prevail one week. Half the—that same—week (I'll try to be literal here), he [the prince who is to come] will "cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates, until destruction... is poured out on the one who desolates.

And "cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates," can describe two initial actions, even if the result of these actions will last a long time (up to the death of Antiochus, but the Jewish sacrifices at the temple restarted one year after his death).

That is not correct. The temple was rededicated in Dec 174 BCE. Antiochus died in the east in the same year, but news of the death would have taken some time to seep through to Judea. Polybius 31.9.1-2 notes his death.

However, the end in these visions is not vaticinium ex eventu: it is being prophecied in each case. The visions were propagandistic in nature, aimed at the moral of Judean forces fighting in the war against Antiochus. The death of Antiochus and the restart of sacrifices hadn't happened as yet. You can see how the last part of Dan 11 goes right off the rails into Hebrew inspired fantasy.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Rubbish. You know you shouldn't try to argue text sensitive issues from translations. There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.

So if Jeshua got crowned, why did he not keep the crowns? Why would those crowns be in control of others? Why several crowns instead of one only (as translated in a few bibles including the NRSV) and apparently not to affirm Jeshua as a prince but "for a memorial in the temple of the Lord."?

Who does the text say got crowned?

Where does the text (or any other texts) say Jeshua became a prince/ruler?

About the atnach in Dan 9:25, it seems to me you did not read an earlier post of mine at: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&p=66318&hilit=masoretes#p66318
If true, Daniel 9:25 should read as "... seven weeks and sixty and two weeks" (NET)
I also note that "and" shows in the Hebrew text as the rightmost letter in ושבעים .

That is not correct. The temple was rededicated in Dec 174 BCE. Antiochus died in the east in the same year, but news of the death would have taken some time to seep through to Judea. Polybius 31.9.1-2 notes his death.

Antiochus IV died in 164 BCE.

However, the end in these visions is not vaticinium ex eventu: it is being prophecied in each case. The visions were propagandistic in nature, aimed at the moral of Judean forces fighting in the war against Antiochus. The death of Antiochus and the restart of sacrifices hadn't happened as yet. You can see how the last part of Dan 11 goes right off the rails into Hebrew inspired fantasy.

I agree that most of Daniel part 2 was written before the death of Antiochus and the restart of Jewish sacrifices (It was written after the massacres of Jews in caves by fire, and before the resistance got somewhat successful). But when that happened the author made insertions and additions at the end.

Go back to your cited examples and note the use of prepositions in Hebrew. The point gets a preposition in Hebrew. There is no preposition in 9:27.
Why the hell do you keep blundering into the Hebrew when you know you are known not to know anything about it? (And will not learn.)

And you are a world expert on Hebrew? I certainly would want to have other learned opinions on the phrase in Dan 9:27, which you would translate as "and for half of the week" (JPS) rather than "But in the middle of that week" (NET) or "and by half of the week" (LXX Theodotion new translation http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... l-nets.pdf).

But if "Daniel" did not know yet about the death of Antiochius IV and the restart of Jewish sacrifices at the temple, how could he surmise the cessation of these sacrifices would last 3.5 years?

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

Rubbish. You know you shouldn't try to argue text sensitive issues from translations. There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.

So if Jeshua got crowned, why did he not keep the crowns?

Where would he put them?? In his pocket? The text says "in the temple". They were apparently in the custody of (newly arrived) priests in the temple.

Why would those crowns be in control of others? Why several crowns instead of one only (as translated in a few bibles including the NRSV) and apparently not to affirm Jeshua as a prince but "for a memorial in the temple of the Lord."?

Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Who does the text say got crowned?

Where does the text (or any other texts) say Jeshua became a prince/ruler?

So you are unable to find anyone else being crowned. The text only allows one person to be ruler: the one who was crowned.

The result of this development in Zechariah is the presentation of Yeshua as both priest and prince.

About the atnach in Dan 9:25, it seems to me you did not read an earlier post of mine at: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&p=66318&hilit=masoretes#p66318
If true, Daniel 9:25 should read as "... seven weeks and sixty and two weeks" (NET)
I also note that "and" shows in the Hebrew text as the rightmost letter in ושבעים .

I've never talked about the atnach. I talked about grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics.

That is not correct. The temple was rededicated in Dec 174 BCE. Antiochus died in the east in the same year, but news of the death would have taken some time to seep through to Judea. Polybius 31.9.1-2 notes his death.

Antiochus IV died in 164 BCE.

Think about it a bit, Bernard. I mean, really! There is an obvious typo: "The temple was rededicated in Dec 174 BCE." The normal thing to say is, "you meant 164, not 174." That is followed by "Antiochus died in the east in the same year", so yes, obviously "Antiochus IV died in 164 BCE". Sheesh.

The temple was rededicated in Dec 164 BCE. Antiochus died in the far east of his empire in the same year, but news of the death would have taken some time to seep through to Judea.

However, the end in these visions is not vaticinium ex eventu: it is being prophecied in each case. The visions were propagandistic in nature, aimed at the moral of Judean forces fighting in the war against Antiochus. The death of Antiochus and the restart of sacrifices hadn't happened as yet. You can see how the last part of Dan 11 goes right off the rails into Hebrew inspired fantasy.

I agree that most of Daniel part 2 was written before the death of Antiochus and the restart of Jewish sacrifices (It was written after the massacres of Jews in caves by fire, and before the resistance got somewhat successful). But when that happened the author made insertions and additions at the end.

OK.

Go back to your cited examples and note the use of prepositions in Hebrew. The point gets a preposition in Hebrew. There is no preposition in 9:27.
Why the hell do you keep blundering into the Hebrew when you know you are known not to know anything about it? (And will not learn.)

And you are a world expert on Hebrew? I certainly would want to have other learned opinions on the phrase in Dan 9:27, which you would translate as "and for half of the week" (JPS) rather than "But in the middle of that week" (NET)

I don't know why NET provides this erroneous translation, but here's a challenge to you: besides the case in question here, find one example where חצי without a preposition means "middle" and not just be the waywardness of a few translators. Without the preposition it is a duration.

or "and by half of the week" (LXX Theodotion new translation http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... l-nets.pdf).

I'd need to see the Greek, given that translations can obscure the original.

But if "Daniel" did not know yet about the death of Antiochius IV and the restart of Jewish sacrifices at the temple, how could he surmise the cessation of these sacrifices would last 3.5 years?

Because much of the time had passed and the aim was to encourage the troops with an end in sight. But then the 3.5 year span got passed, leading to the addendum, 1290 days, no, 1335.

[Secret Alias]

http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBunix/ ... rsion2=NBr

[Bernard Muller]

posted twice by mistake. see next post.

[Bernard Muller]

Duplication again

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Where would he put them?? In his pocket? The text says "in the temple". They were apparently in the custody of (newly arrived) priests in the temple.

Where would he put them? At home, hidden. That was the safest and most logical place.
And there was no temple yet.

Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Do you think the text says "crown" (singular)? If more than one, then "several" is OK.
I know the translators do not agree about "crown" being singular or plural. I thought you went for plural. l followed you on that.
I do not know about the cause of the controversy. Maybe the Hebrew here for "crown" is not a regular singular nor a regular plural. What do you think?

I've never talked about the atnach. I talked about grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics.

I never read the so-called break in Dan 9:25 was caused by anything other than the Atnach.
You must be a super expert in Hebrew to see that break is "about grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics".
Your arguments on grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&start=40#p65721
Note: later you made the correction: replace Cyrus by Jeshua, son of Josedek.
It seems your argument assumes that Jeshua is the anointed prince and the rest has to fit. Plus some anti-fundies motivation. So the break.

Because much of the time had passed and the aim was to encourage the troops with an end in sight. But then the 3.5 got passed leading to the addendum, 1290 days, no, 1335.

But when the 3.5 years had passed (and the Jewish sacrifices re-established after 3 years of cessation), there would be no need to add up more time.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

Where would he put them?? In his pocket? The text says "in the temple". They were apparently in the custody of (newly arrived) priests in the temple.

Where would he put them? At home, hidden.

Alongside his golf trophy. Jeez, Bernard. You seem to have a very modern view of the ancient world.

That was the safest and most logical place.

To you. Crowns were not owned by those crowned. They were cultural possessions and usually to be passed forward.

And there was no temple yet.

If you're really interested in quibbling here, you should take it up with the writers who specifically state that the crowns would be in the hands of the four guys as a memorial in the temple.

However, if you'd like me to conjecture about the text, there are two meanings for "temple": 1) the generic all inclusive temple and precincts and 2) the sanctuary, ie the structure that housed the presence of the Hebrew God when he deigned to visit. Nothing was kept in the sanctuary, but in the out buildings for the priests. Try there.

Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Do you think the text says "crown" (singular)? If more than one, then "several" is OK.
I know the translators do not agree about "crown" being singular or plural. I thought you went for plural. l followed you on that.
I do not know about the cause of the controversy. Maybe the Hebrew here for "crown" is not a regular singular nor a regular plural. What do you think?

Here's what I said earlier:

There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.

I've never talked about the atnach. I talked about grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics.

I never read the so-called break in Dan 9:25 was caused by anything other than the Atnach.
You must be a super expert in Hebrew to see that break is "about grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics".
Your arguments on grammar, syntax and Hebrew stylistics: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&start=40#p65721
Note: later you made the correction: replace Cyrus by Jeshua, son of Josedek.
It seems your argument assumes that Jeshua is the anointed prince and the rest has to fit. So the break.

You're just projecting your modus operandi onto me. Here is what I have already said:

1.

It is merely Hebrew style to bring phrases together in parallelisms so that one might finish a clause and another will start the next.

2.

(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.)

3.

In looking at 9:27 I noticed this:
He will make a binding covenant with many for one week,
and for half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings.(ISV)
Do you see how the duration in the first clause is at the end and in the second at the beginning? This is a similar structure to the one seen in 9:25.

#2 supplies the syntactical problem of removing the "and sixty-two weeks" from what follows, ie creating an unattached fragment. #3 shows that phrases of the same category in two sentences can be moved together.

The atnach is just another pointer against the christianizing of the verse.

Your job is to find a reasonable precedent for adding the two durations together in other Hebrew literature to make it seem a plausible option. Or is the addition just a manipulation of an obvious text to change its meaning?

Because much of the time had passed and the aim was to encourage the troops with an end in sight. But then the 3.5 got passed leading to the addendum, 1290 days, no, 1335.

But when the 3.5 years had passed (and the Jewish sacrifices re-established after 3 years of cessation), there would be no need to add up more time.

The chronology is problematic. Antiochus led the second entry into Egypt in 168. When did he return to Judea after that? He didn't stay long in Egypt after meeting with Popillius Laenas. The date of 15 Chislev 145th year of the Seleucid reign to mark the pollution of the temple (1 Macc 1:54) doesn't make sense, if we are to believe that Jason made his comeback while Antiochus was still in Egypt. Antiochus should have been in Judea before the end of 168. He pillaged the temple and returned to Antioch. 2 Macc 6:1 says that the temple was polluted soon afterwards. How long after Antiochus returned from Egypt was the temple polluted, a year? I don't think so. Having lost his security with possession of Egypt Antiochus had an unsafe border to the south and needed to strengthen Judea. His policy involved full hellenization and it was started as early as possible, given his exigencies. Daniel's insistence on the 3.5 years suggests that the temple was polluted early in 167, which accords with the indications I gave early in the paragraph.