to spin,
You should stop these straw men. There is no argument because you are being irrelevant. No-one equated anything, except you.
So what did you bring that parallel use of days and years? what would be the relevance with the issues in Daniel 9?
Very remote and far-fetched in my view.
The only reason you can say this is because here you ignore my comments on weeks of years being paralleled to weeks of days. (Your far-fetched comment is an empty assertion.)
We may have weeks of days in Daniel 10, but we don't have "weeks of years" in Dan 9, just "weeks".
Again a misrepresentation of what was said to you.
I was not even trying to comment on your ideas. I was giving my viewpoint on that matter.
Leviticus is stating the cultural issue: it is only obvious it would be explicit. Jubilees uses "weeks of years" structurally, so its explicitness is obvious. Nevertheless we have a clear idiomatic use of weeks with years and despite your need to deny that, there is little chance it would be ignored in Dan 9.
but weeks of years is institutional, given Lev 25.
There are 32 times "seven years" in the OT (including 15 in Genesis starting at 29:18) which could have been easily rendered as "week of year". But none of them did.
One verse only does not make it a cultural issue or institutional. Jubilees came later than Daniel and just adapted "sabbaths of years" to "Jubilees of years". Lev 25 never made "sabbath(s)" on its own equivalent to period(s) of seven years. And there is no "of years" in Daniel 9 following "weeks".
Also, I notice that Lev 25:8 has "seven times seven years", but Daniel 9:25 has "weeks/sevens seven" and not "seven times weeks/sevens". It is a clear distinction from Lev 25:8. And it also looks "Daniel" tried to avoid his audience to think about multiplication. With some added punctuation his "weeks/sevens seven would be "weeks/sevens: seven"
Well, if they didn't know about sabbath years and hence weeks of years, you could be right, but it is ridiculous to think that they did not know the agricultural calendar and its implications. Land was by law left in the sabbath year. You want these illiterate peasants not to know about their livelihood. You joke.
I don't see any connection between sabbath years (one year every 7 years) and weeks of years (duration of 7 years). More so when "of years" is not specified in Daniel. As for knowing when the Sabbath year will come, they only had to keep tab of the elapsed years from the last Sabbath year.
Another non-reflection on anything I have said
Why should I always reflect on what you said? I can be saying what I think, regardless of what you said. That's my right.
Yet another strawman. This so far has been one crock of nonsense.
If the "he" is not Menelaus in Dan 9:27 (but rather Antiochus in 167 BCE, which is absolutely certain), that means your 7 years starting with Menelaus (allegedly making the Greek covenant strong in 171 BCE) is wrong. And with your last week meaning 7 years proven to be wrong, and your "weeks" meaning the same (7 years),
your theory dies right here.
שבעים the noun, means "weeks". It does not mean seven years.
That's what I have been saying all along.
The word "week" is a concept of seven time units, normally days
"time units" normally days"? Not normally, always "days". Where does "week(s)" is not period(s) of 7 days in the OT? Nowhere, not even in Leviticus 25 ("sabbaths" is not "weeks"), except for Dan 9:24,25 & 26.
Now, you have babbled about the form of the word שבעים without knowing anything about defective spellings, so claiming שבעים doesn't mean weeks because it is not spelled weeks is just nonsense. The word seven שבע is an adjective, whose "plural" form means "seventy", which is also an adjective. Dan 9's שבעים שבעים is an adjective noun combination, ie "seventy weeks".
All I have been saying if "Daniel" used שבעים for "weeks", he would have used שבע for "week" in Daniel 9:27, just as in Genesis, instead of שבוע. That plene form for "week" does not appear anywhere else in the OT.
It is obvious that "Daniel" wanted to make a distinction between "weeks" and week in Dan 9.
Number can be used as noun, such as "the fantastic four" or "the twelve". OK, that's not found in the OT, except in 'Daniel', as I see it. BUT you wrote:
Umm, it's a vision: language is used cryptically. That does not mean there is no logic, but that the logic is arcane.
I agree with that. But that goes both ways, not only for you. As you say: language in a vision is cryptic (& "Daniel" had multiple first in them).
The existence in Daniel of "Darius the Mede" should show you just how confused the writers were about Persian and Median chronology.
As you keep trying to peddle Hebrew ultra-accuracy, tell me, when was the temple rebuilt? Ezra 6:14 talks of commands to finish the temple from Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. So under which Darius was the completion date (6:15)? Why according to 2 Macc 1:18ff is it Nehemiah who is first to rekindle the temple's fire and in fact is attributed with building the temple?
The only things that the educated Jews had to know is when was the first year of Cyrus relative to their times. Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes & Nehemiah relative times did not matter in the scheme of the seventy sevens.
Built under Cyrus... built under Darius... built by Nehemiah....
Isaiah 44:28 (written soon after the facts) has Jerusalem rebuilt but only the temple foundation laid during the reign of Cyrus.
The temple was rebuilt under Darius' reign.
Nehemiah had the city wall completed and its gates repaired, which encouraged Jews to build houses inside the safety of the walls.
While Daniel instead was motivated by ultra-accuracy! I guess you cannot see the incoherence of your approach.
Why not: "Daniel" was not the Seder Olam. Different thinking, different authors, different times but same goal: the chronology pointing to their (different) targeted year.
About 'Ezra': I am very certain that Ez 4:6-23 (about the city and the wall, not the temple) was relocated from the front of Nehemiah 1 (Ezra & Nehemiah were originally one book) (also Ez 4:24 was added then). But that's something to discuss on Jewish Texts and History, not here.
Who said the spreadsheet was used by Jews in 167 BCE? Oh, I get it, another strawman. I understand that you don't see how outlandish your proposal is, how unreflective of anything of the time we are dealing with, how modern the conception is.
But you accused me that the Jews had to use a spreadsheet like mine to figure out the targeted year was 167 BCE.
I've already shown this sad attempt is piffle. I pointed you to a court case in which the question was repeatedly asked "How long has the house been built?" You ignored it
You are the one who ignored one of my post (
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&start=160#p68269):
That is not an answer to the question asked of you: How long has your house been built? You indicate when your house was built. Can you answer my question, please?
50 years if you mean "remained built" for "built". The question is rather strangely stated and subject to confusion.
But did I tell you my house was demolished 2 years ago and I live now in a rented flat? in that case, the Hebrew perfect would be used. But if my house is still standing, so the Hebrew imperfect would apply.
If we look at "Then for sixty-two "weeks" (434 years for you) it shall be put back (imperfect) and remained built (perfect) with squares and moat, but in a troubled time." then that would mean "Daniel" thought the city or/and temple was still put back, and, at the same time, the "remained built" completed (that is "destroyed") in 171 BCE (that's where the last 7 years start for you). "Destroyed", yes according to Dan 9:26, but later (in 167 BCE).
That syntax does not make sense to me.
It is not a multi-clause verse.
That shows the atnach can be put anywhere, not only in front of a clause.
What follows the atnach is an embedded noun clause.
Not immediately: there are two words in between: מספר השנים
Why are you confusing atnach and silluq here? You've already related the silluq to the end of a verse. The atnach by its nature does not mark the end of a verse. It was introduced to facilitate reciting. That cashed out to separating the first sense group from what followed. It may not have been perfect, but in a multi-clause verse it separated the first clause. You might find rare exceptions regarding accuracy, but the practice is quite plain. Your argument is essentially once again, you know better than the masoretes in this case.
However, in real life we start off with the Masoretes as the default position and to go against it you need to provide evidence to say why you disagree.
"atnach by its nature does not mark the end of a verse. It was introduced to facilitate reciting.": I agree with that.
But if the Masoretes wanted to indicate the start of new independent clause, they would have used a silluq instead of an etnach. That shows the Masoretes were hesitant about declaring the start of a new independent clause (from the 1st one), so they put an etnach rather than a silluq.
"Your argument is essentially once again, you know better than the Masoretes in this case": Your argument is you know better than the LXX translator (many centuries before the Masoretes) who, without any ambiguity, linked the seven "weeks" with the sixty-two "weeks".
This is pure unjustified assertion. The verse states that the prince the anointed came seven weeks after the word to rebuild and for the next sixty-two weeks the city stayed built. So when exactly in this scheme was the city finished? To me it is obviously after seven weeks.
That's what you say. But Jeshua the high priest did not come after 49 years (not even close), and the perfect in your "stayed built" would mean the city had been destroyed in 171 BCE (while still staying restored!).
The "stayed built" in combination with "for 62 years" does not make sense.
Furthermore "but in troubled time" indicates a limited time, because there is not indication that during the last Persian kings and the Hellenist ones up to Antiochus IV, time were troubled for the Jews in Jerusalem.
Cordially, Bernard