Bernard Muller wrote:
Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.
Bernard Muller wrote:Bernard Muller wrote: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.
What you said earlier does not match my concern and question.
Anyway, you are sticking with "crowns" (plural). So I do not know why you have been bickering about me mentioning several crowns.
Well, stop crapping on about
"several" crowns. It is just an obfuscation, based on the misapprehension that a repetition of prepositions means separate receivers of crowns. Try "crowns". I do not want to have to cope with backdoor weaseling returning on the "several" front.
* Sigh *, case in point in your following post:
Bernard Muller wrote:I think the symbolic meaning of having several crowns put on the head of the high priest was meant to sanctify the crowns rather than sanctify Jeshua.
Pure eisegesis.
Bernard Muller wrote:And you avoided to answer my question about singular or plural for "crown" even if you implied your knowledge of Hebrew is better than most translators. BTW, your dear NRSV went for "crown" singular.
You've already just acknowledged:
Anyway, you are sticking with "crowns" (plural).
We have been working on the notion of crowns being plural for
several posts.
Bernard Muller wrote:About your perceived coronation of a prince in Zec 6:11, these words would not be expected if Jeshua becomes prince: "... Behold, the man whose name is the Branch [definitively as I have shown before, Zerubbabel] 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, ..."
That's not the words you expect is Jeshua is being consecrated prince/ruler.
There is no argument here. Just unfounded conjecture. The text reports only one person crowned. There are no other crowns. The discourse is clear in that it permits only one interpretation as there is only one person mentioned as present and crowned. This persistent misunderstanding hope of yours will persistently fail because it is against the sense of the narrative in the chapter.
Bernard Muller wrote:It is merely Hebrew style to bring phrases together in parallelisms so that one might finish a clause and another will start the next.
If I understand well your rather ill-explained statement, the Parallelisms refers to the two consecutive durations (D & D') in Dan 9:25 with the rest of their attached clauses (A & B). So according to you, we have in that verse AD D'B
Well I found one verse in the OT with the form AD BD' :
1 Ki 2:11 YLT
"and the days that David hath reigned over Israel are forty years, in Hebron he hath reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he hath reigned thirty and three years."
The order in the YLT reflects the order in the Hebrew.
in Hebron he hath reigned = A
seven years = D
and in Jerusalem he hath reigned = B
thirty and three years = D'
And, searching all the books of the OT on "years", I did not find anything in the form AD D'B outside of your interpretation of Daniel 9:25. I ask you: what are your Hebrew examples in the form AD D'B?
Once again you misunderstand. This basic issue is stylistic and matters of style tend to manifest in non-narrative discourse. It was not a rule that temporal phrases in parallel clauses are brought together. However, it is a feature on Hebrew literature, so when you find two such phrases you would not put them together as part of the one clause. Consider Ps 1:6
for the LORD knows the way of the righteous
and the way of the wicked will perish
and Ex 20:23
Do not make with Me gods of silver
and gods of gold make not to yourselves
and Gen 4:24
If sevenfold is required for Cain
and for Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Syntactic chiasmus is frequent in Hebrew. That's what we find in 9:27
And he shall make a strong covenant with many one week,
and half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
That is what we see in 9:25
from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks,
and sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Working from the Hebrew without the English confusion, you wouldn't conceive of adding the week and the half week together in 9:27.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many one week and half of the week,
he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
So why on earth do you add them together in 9:25, for which there is no precedent? I understand exactly why christians add them together and produce translations that promote doing so.
Bernard Muller wrote:(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.)
Well nothing his adrift and make a lot of sense that way:
That's because you are Englishizing again and ignoring Hebrew syntax. So you have wasted your breath crapping on about an English translation and not understanding the issue. I'll try again: Clauses within a verse are connected with a
waw—a special use of the
waw which in itself means "and". T.J.Meek says:
In Hebrew originally, as all scholars know, there was no punctuation of any sort and no division of the consonants into words or of the words into phrases and clauses. Accordingly there was nothing to indicate the beginning of a new clause except an introductory particle and this in most cases had to be waw. (JBL 64.1 p.2)
Separating the "and 62 weeks" from what follows leaves that clause without an introductory particle, ie it is syntactically adrift as I tried to explain. It needs the
waw to mark the beginning of a new clause. Do you understand that? It demonstrates that the "and 62 weeks" belongs to what follows, supplying the following clause with its introductory particle.
Bernard Muller wrote: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.
I think I just did that.
All you did with to show you don't understand what you are trying to deal with. Where in the Hebrew bible to you get two durations that are meant to be added together into a single duration, as all the donkeys do with seven weeks and sixty-two weeks? The claim is that the duration of x is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. I'm asking you for one guaranteed exemplar.
Bernard Muller wrote: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.
I studied the dating here, according to 1 Macc.:
http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html and looking back at it, I think 168 BCE is the most likely date for the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices. And 165 BCE is the most likely date for the resumption of the Jewish sacrifices. But that 's not certain.
Furthermore, in Daniel 8:13-14, which I consider an insertion written after the facts (including the reconsecration of the temple):
" ... For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"
And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."'
the duration of the cessation of Jewish sacrifices is three years and 65 days.
Anyway about
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.
It seems to me you meant that after 3.5 years, the Jewish sacrifices did nor resume yet, so the author added 1290 days (3.5 + 3.5 = 7 years total), then because the reconsecration of the temple did not happen yet, he added more days (1335).
No! First 110 days were added to the shortest duration (8:14, 1150 days) to make 3.5 years or 1260 days, which is stated three times in the visions. Then 30 days were added in 12:11 and finally another 45 days were "discovered", added in the book at 12:12.