Any scholarship going beyond what is written in the OT is just speculation.As you really don't know the scholarship on the subject and you are continuing to show no interest in finding out, I really don't think you can make any reasonable comments on Yeshua and Zerubbabel in Zechariah. All you are doing is negating what the text says and then doing eisegesis. An internet search for "what happened to Zerubbabel" might point you in the right direction. (You might also think about when the high priest as political head of the Jewish people began during Persian rule.)
And I did not find anything which would be in your favor when I searched for "what happened to Zerubbabel".
The OT texts do not say Jeshua became a prince/ruler or the crown(s) was/were a symbol of his princeship.
Jeshua is always called high priest and the crown(s) is/are "for a memorial in the temple" (whatever that means).
You are peddling huge inaccuracies in your durations.When you try to make claims regarding durations, dates and percentage errors I'd say your still peddling ultra-accuracy.
One verse about "sabbath of years" (which is fully explained) in Lev 25:8 is not enough for a reflection of the cultic mores of the society. That's not repeated anywhere else in the OT, not even in Numbers & Deuteronomy.So you don't think a central text like Leviticus is a reflection of the cultic mores of the society? Really, do you? Do you need it repeated a number of times to be sure?
And it's a long way from "sabbath of years" to "week" meaning 7 years.
That's new. When I asked you about plural & singular for "crown", you opted plural.Englishizing rubbish. First there is sufficient scholarly doubt on whether עטרת is a plural at all and not a defective feminine form. That in itself should make you think twice about pursuing the nonsense about the four guys each receiving a crown. You ignored the fact that prepositions are used differently in Hebrew, so that you cannot use them to assert separate receipt of crowns.
I already said versification is arbitrary (and done in medieval times). And the versificators would naturally put any clause starting with no particle like waw at the beginning of a new verse. So few clauses with particle like waw have to be expected within a verse.Ya know, Bernard, how many thousand verses have you got to look into to find an example or two of clauses within them not starting with a particle like waw? There are so many, can't you confirm just one complete clause within a verse?
And verses are usually short, so many do not have any other clause than the one starting the verse (and finishing it).
However I looked in the first verses of 'Isaiah' and I found that: in 1:4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 & 16, there are clause(s) within the verses without a particle like waw.
The definition for clause is "a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate." https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clause+meaning&*
The 1150 days is from the cessation of Jewish sacrifices in the of the temple to its reconsecration.OK, you have not been clear up to now. Please use the dates in regard to the goalposts: 1) stoppage of the Tamid, 2) the installation of the abomination, 3) the death of Antiochus IV and 4) the rededication of the temple. I hope you can make it clear.
The 1290 days is indicating when the temple was desecrated again after the cessation of Jewish sacrifices.
The 1335 days is indicating when the temple was reconsecrated again after the cessation of Jewish sacrifices.
The news of Antiochus' death must have come to Jerusalem some time after these 1335 days.
According to 1 Macc. 1 and the 1150 days, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_era, the cessation of sacrifices occurred around the 20th of October 167 BCE. That would be about 55 days before the pagan sacrifice on 15th December 167 BCE.
The 1150 days would point to the 15th of December 164 BCE.
The 1290 days would point to approximately the 5th of May 163 BCE.
The 1335 days would correspond to about mid-June in 163 BCE, that is approximately three years and 8 months after the first cessation of the Jewish sacrifices and 6 months after the first reconsecration (15th Dec. 164).
About soldiers reclaiming the temple temporarily after the first reconsecration:
Josephus' Ant., XII, IX, 3a. "At that time [163 B.C.E.] it was that the garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, with the Jewish renegades, did a great deal of harm to the Jews: for the soldiers that were in that garrison rushed out upon the sudden, and destroyed such as were going to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices, for this citadel adjoined to and overlooked the temple. When these misfortunes had often happened to them, ..."
1Maccabees: 1:33-36 "Then they built up the City of David with a high, massive wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. There they installed a sinful race, perverse men, who fortified themselves inside it, storing up weapons and provisions, and depositing there the plunder they had collected from Jerusalem. And they became a great threat. The citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, and a wicked adversary to Israel at all times."
About Dan 12:11 "and from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice, and to the giving out of the desolating abomination, are days a thousand, two hundred, and ninety."
I wrote it does not make sense that the end time of these 1290 days would not be indicated. This end time is obviously the "desolating abomination", and that has to be a 2nd one, after the initial desecration.
The word by word translator of the Hebrew also account for that "to" (which I bolded), even if it may be implied:
"and·from·era he-is-taken-awayand·from·era the·continually and·to·to-give-of abomination one-desolating days
thousand two-hundreds and·ninety" http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /dan12.pdf
The "to" is also omitted in the expression "from point A to Point B) in Gen 26:23, Ex 12:37 & 17:16, Joshua 7:2 and Jer 27:20 (I only checked parts of these 4 books).
OK, so we would have 2 cases:"After" is a derived meaning from "hinder part" and you have no real way to assert that it indicates "following the end of" rather than "at the end of". You are trying to force the events at the end of the 69th week into the seventieth week, despite the text specifically telling you not to by saying when the one week was. If you remember that אחרי literally indicates the rear, then you have no problem reading it as "at the end of the 62 weeks". You keep pushing for the English meanings of terms that don't quite fit the Hebrew.
1) "And following the end of the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; ..."
In this case, the removal of Onias III (175 BCE) would happen anytime after the sixty-two weeks, possibly years afterwards.
2) "And at the end of the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; ..."
In this case, the removal of Onias III would happen right at the end of the sixty-two weeks.
But you want the seventieth year to start in 171 BCE instead, that's 3-4 years after Onias III's removal.
So the "after" would mean "before" as such:
"And before the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; ..."
Do you know of any instance where אַחַר means "before" rather than "after" (as "afterwards")?
And the contemporaries of "Daniel", because they lived through that period, would know that the removal of Onias III happened years before your so-called covenant of Antiochus IV with Menelaus.
In 2 Macc 6:7 it is a old man from Athens, who, after Antiochus' army 2nd foray in Jerusalem, attempted these changes of times. That certainly would not prevent "Daniel" to write (in Dan 7:25, between the two forays) Antiochus IV thought about changing the times (but not acted on it).I was explaining the language to you concerning the use of "think". There is no suggestion that Antiochus did not change the times. If you need to see it, 2 Macc 6:7 shows Antiochus imposing the Greek calendar on the Jews. Not only did Antiochus think it, he acted on it
But the "weeks" in Dan 10:2 & 10:3 really mean weeks. But "weeks" in Dan 9:25-27 cannot mean plain "weeks".The weeks in 9:25 and the week in 9:27 are dealing with the same time unit, plural and singular.
Still the same subterfuge. you can compare ones with halve or sevens or whatever measures you like:
So there is no general rule for the meaning of "week" or "weeks" in 'Daniel'.
"half of the week" can be a point of time: the middle of the week.Talking about "by day" or "by night" measures nothing, so has nothing to do with the measure of time "half a week".
How do you know when εν does not indicate "at"? "in" indicates a point of time, not a duration. That point of time does not need to be instant such as "I'll visit you in mid-week" (the visit can last hours).How do you know when εν does not indicate the usual "in"?
So what? the actions are completed (die, served & reigned). In Daniel 9:25, the confirmation/strengthening is completed at the time of the writing of this verse. The action does not have to be instantaneous, just completed.So what do you have to say about the perfect in Gen 33:13, "if you overdrive them for one day, the all flocks will die" or 31:41 in which Jacob served Laban for fourteen years or 1 Kgs 16:23 in which Omri reigned six years in Tirzah? All perfects.
Yes, in the case that your seventieth week of years beginning in 171. But then, I demonstrated earlier that the "after" in Dan 9:26 would have to be replaced by "before".This is not clear to me. Is the seventieth week that you talk of here, the one in 9:27? If so, the half week which measures the cessation of the Tamid was 168/7 to 164, as I, like most other readers of the passage, see the use of "weeks" to be implying "weeks of years", as you know. That period marks the beginning of the pollution to the rededication.
Qal perfect is about completed action, not only punctiliar one (as you demonstrated earlier).I don't agree with your attempt at grammar here. The verb means "prevail or be strong", so we should have "cause to prevail for one week". (This is not a punctiliar action at all.)
You have a big problem here, as I explained already on this post: "after" is not "before".You have not been concentrating. I have told you already that the last week started well after Onias was removed from office in 175. It started ~171 when Menelaus outbid Jason for the high priesthood.
Yes, But as I mentioned before on this thread: the imperfect is used to express the "future", referring not only to an action which is about to be accomplished but one which has not yet begun.For the writer it was not finished. That is one of the major implications of the imperfect.
And the example: "We will burn" thy house. There is no reference here on how long is the burning or the duration of the house in the state of being burnt.
The perfect, as the imperfect, are not used to indicate duration, but a completed action (perfect) or an action still going on (imperfect). In "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" Antiochus started the action but when the main part of his army was gone from Jerusalem, the cessation continued at the time of writing of the verse.
Anyway, in case of the future, my examples show that any duration is of no concern. The initial future action can even be quasi-instant as for burning of a house.
That does not mean that after 69 "weeks", we are not in the seventieth "week". And in that seventieth "week" (which for me falls on one year only, which is 167 BCE), a real week of 7 days can be embedded into it.That you cannot get past the fact that Dan 9:25-27 clearly spells out seventy weeks as 7 + 62 + 1,
The author wrote "weeks" in its defective form in Dan 10:2 & 3. And "weeks" here means series of 7 days. So would that same form found in Dan 24-27 mean the same: NO.The sevens argument is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew orthography: there is no tangible reason for you to think that the writers did not mean "weeks" in its defective form.
And your week of 7 years does not fit, and the chronological errors it causes are way beyond inaccuracies. For your last week, you have to imply that "after" in Dan 9:25 means "before" to make it fit your theories.
I knew that all the time. But my table would have been way too big if I had the written words instead of numbers.Your seventy sevens is based on the fact you didn't know Hebrew had no digits, so they couldn't count sevens, which is the whole basis of your table.
Writing all the words out would not help and there is no thought involved in annotations-in-sand conjecture.
I would have highlighted all the occurrences of שבע. These annotation in the sand is like manually/mentally adding a long list of of similar items by splitting the list in parts and then annotating the total for each part, which are added later to make the grand total.
I never changed my goal post.This is just a series of goalpost moves.
The notion that you put forward with your table would not have made any sense to people listening to the text being read.
Not at first, because it's presented as a puzzle and oracle. But listeners would be very intrigued and ask for explanations. Then one of the literate one (possibly the author, but posing as only the discoverer of the text) would suggest that because the "weeks" of 9:24-26 cannot be about a 7 days period, it may be about "seven", that is שבע (with an irregular plural: the regular form seems to be the clumsy שבעה שבעה as in Gen 7:3). From that, the ball would be rolling and another literate one (or the same) would find the system (which miraculously would bring these seventy "seven" to their time).
They work perfectly.Your seventy sevens does not work
Cordially, Bernard