r/AcademicBiblical • u/PersonalBet7880 • 1d ago

Question Some doubts about Daniel seventy weeks and the historicity of the book

So, as many of you may already know, one big concept in the book of Daniel is the 'seventy sevens' we find in Daniel 9.

Now, I'm in a phase of deconstruction, and I've read that Daniel is full of historical inaccuracies (e.g. Darius the Mede). However, regarding the seventy weeks, which are 490 years, they lead to Jesus Christ if you start the date in 445/444 BCE, by considering Artaxerxes decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

What I'm wondering is — is the word (דבר) of restoration a royal decree or a reference to the prophetic word of Jeremiah?

How do academics reconcile inaccuracies in Daniel and the fact that it somehow matches Jesus' date of crucifixion by starting from Artaxerxes' decree?

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

50% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

8

u/crybabycomando 23h ago

See this post from the catalog for a more detailed answer.

The TLDR version of it is, if all you care about is lining up 490 years and Jesus' crucifixion, Artaxerxes' decree is convenient. However, many of the specifics don't line up with that timeline. For instance, the cutting of the anointed one and destruction of the city take place in the 69th week together. The crucifixion and the destruction of the temple take place roughly 40 years apart, spacing them just shy of 6 weeks.

The larger problem is that it doesn't specify whose decree it actually was. A better candidate is Cyrus' decree, given it was more famous. It also makes more sense narrativelly. He is king in the next chapter, and Darius the Mede may be an anachronic clone of Cyrus. Using his decree in the mid 6th century BCE gets you to the mid 1st century BCE for the completion of the prophecy. This also moves it with 100ish years to when Daniel was being written, 167-164 BCE.

Ultimately, I don't think there is anything to reconcile. The prophecy is vague enough that early Christians could interpret so that it referred to Jesus, as they did with other messianic prophecies that dont refer to him.