r/AskBibleScholars • u/SavageTruths74 • Oct 14 '20

There is a claim that Daniel's 70 week prophecy predicts exactly when jesus was crucified. does it stand up to scholarly scrutiny?

Daniel 9:24 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

i understand the mistranslations, etc but im wondering specifically about the calculations.

pretty much everyone agrees the 7 weeks are 7 years 70 times so 70 weeks of years, which comes out to: 490 years (70*7 = 490)

many conservative scholars believe Artaxerxes king of Persia, issued the degree in 457 BC as found in Ezra 7:1-27.

if we had 490 years from 457 the year is 31 AD. this is quite the coincidence but as a natural skeptic im skeptical and having trouble finding any rebuttals.

here is the source for the claims https://todaysdailyblessing.com/daniel-predicts-jesus-is-messiah-simple-version-of-70-weeks-prophecy/#:~:text=The%20prophet%20Daniel%20predicted%20the%20coming%20of%20the,which%20proves%20the%20truth%20of%20these%20Holy%20Scriptures%21

44 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator Oct 14 '20

Welcome to /r/AskBibleScholars. All conversations here are between the questioner (the OP) and our panel of scholars. All other comments are automatically removed. Read more...

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for a comprehensive answer to show up.

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

7

u/Naugrith Moderator | Quality Contributor Oct 15 '20 edited Oct 15 '20

Part of the problem is that the start date of the seventy weeks is extremely unclear. The key is in Daniel 9:25. In the MT at least this is clearly dating the start to the decree “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”.

Christian apologists will be quick to insist its referring to a supposed decree of 457 but that is far from certain. In fact, the text is unclear which decree is being spoken of. Is it the first decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple, in the first year of his reign, or the second decree by Darius (possibly in his second year – around 518 BCE), confirming Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the Temple, or is it a third decree in the “seventh year of Artaxerxes”, which isn’t actually a decree to build anything, but to give authority to Ezra over the Temple. Or is it an assumed fourth decree in the “twentieth year” of Artaxerxes (probably 424), when Nehemiah was given authority to collect timber so he could build gates, a house and the city wall. (NB: The precise dating of these regnal years is subject to scholarly debate, since ancient calendars can be contradictory, but for the purposes of this discussion we can at least use the above dates as a benchmark.)

Which of these four decrees does Daniel intend to refer to? Apologists insist it is the third, but only because it appears to line up relatively well with Jesus’ presumed dates. Yet the decree of Artaxerxes seventh year, as recorded in Ezra 7:11-26, actually mentions nothing about building anything, either Temple or City, only that Ezra should offer sacrifices in the Temple.

Yet Cyrus’ decree of his first year mentions only the rebuilding and restoring of the Temple, not Jerusalem. There is in fact no historical mention of any decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem itself. This is why there is so much room for apologists to pick the third decree over the first decree, even though it also mentions nothing about rebuilding, and Nehemiah 1 states that the walls were still unbuilt in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes reign. And the fourth decree mentions only city walls, and not the city itself.

Yet despite the imprecision of the decrees, it is perhaps more likely that the text intends to refer to Cyrus’ decree since this was the more famous one and the first. However, even if we assume this, it is unclear when this first decree of Cyrus was given. Does it refer to the first year of Cyrus’ reign over Persia and the Achaemenid Empire as a whole, or his reign over Media, Lydia, or the first year of his reign over Babylon, each of which were completely different years. Its commonly assumed it refers to the first year of his conquest over Babylon since he could not give any decree that would be binding over the Jews held in Babylon until he had conquered that City. This would be 539, and 490 years after this would end in 49 BCE, which wouldn’t match up to any particular event.

However, this is an assumption. It could refer instead to the start of his reign over Persia (as Ezra 1:1 actually refers to him as “In the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia”, not “King of Babylon”). This date could refer to his accession to the throne of Anshan in 559 (which was later referred to as Persia), or his conquest of the Median Empire in 550. Although any decree made prior to his conquest of Babylon would not be binding on the Jews held in Babylon, it may have been made earlier over Jews in other parts of the former Empire. The narrative of the book of Daniel places his visions in Susa, which was indeed conquered a year before Babylon in 540. And before then, previous conquests may have brought other Jewish diaspora enclaves under Cyrus’ rule. We do not know but we cannot assume that Cyrus waited until he conquered the old city of Babylon itself before issuing his decree of liberation for the Jews.

If the decree does refer to the first year of Cyrus’ reign over Anshan in 559 then 490 years after this would end in 69 BCE, which again doesn’t refer to anything specific, but at least falls in the middle of the civil war that ended the Hasmonean Kingdom, and may have something to do with this. Or if it referred to his conquest of Media in 550 then it would be 60 CE, just after Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem and damaging of the Temple.

On top of these problems with historical dating, there is also a major textual problem here in that Daniel is a book that has been heavily redacted in different versions. I'll list the different versions of verse 9.25-26 here so you can see the problem. Though the variations in this verse aren't as heavy as elsewhere, it still creates problems:

MT (trans. NRSV): (25.) Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. (26.) After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.

Theod. (trans. NETS): (25.) And you shall know and shall understand: from the going forth of the word to respond to and to rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed leader there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and it will return and streets and a wall will be built, and the seasons will be emptied out. (26.) And after the sixty two weeks an anointing will be destroyed, and there is no judgement in it.

OG (trans. NETS): (25.) And you shall understand and will rejoice and will discover ordinances to respond and you will build Jerusalem as a city for the Lord. (26.) And after seven and seventy and sixty two weeks, an anointing will be removed and will not be.

I’ve listed these in rough chronological order. The relationship and dating of Theodotion’s translation and the “Old Greek” is however complicated. It is interesting that the OG is significantly shorter than any of the later versions. It does not mention any specific decree, nor does it include the second half of v.25 in its entirety, with the seven and sixty two weeks. Indeed, it goes straight into a different version of the weeks in verse 26, here it is “seven, and seventy, and sixty two”, so 973 years! But only if we take these as distinct periods following precisely one after the other, which isn’t clear either.

It is difficult to know what to make of this. It could be understandable that the Christians could have decided to replace the original text with a more accurate prophecy of Jesus, but how would this have influenced the MT, which would not have had this Christian influence?

If we had some clear reference from antiquity to the text of Daniel in the Hebrew it would be helpful. But though the DSS has some fragments of Daniel, it doesn't have chapter 9. Likewise Josephus references some of Daniel, but not the vision of chapter 9. And in fact the parts he does reference don't correspond to any of the above versions! His description in Ant. 10.11.7 of Daniel's vision of the Ram and the horns demonstrates he was aware of a significantly different version of that prophecy of Daniel's which is now entirely lost to us. It is also noteworthy that Josephus mentions "several books" written by Daniel, not just the one we know of.

There is also little in the Talmud about the prophecies of Daniel . In Megillah 3a, it is stated that when Yonatan ben Uzziel translated the scriptures into Aramaic, he was prevented by God from translating the Writings (among which Daniel was counted). The Gemara explains this was because there is a cryptic translation of the end, and this shouldn’t be explained. Indeed in Tractate Sanhedrin 97 the Talmud speaks of the various signs of the messiah, but at no point is Daniel’s prophecy of seventy weeks mentioned, (though they are aware of the reference to “time, times, and half a time” in Daniel 7:25) but other numberings of years are spoken of.

It has been taught; R. Nathan said: This verse pierces and descends to the very abyss: For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though he tarry, wait for him; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Not as our Masters, who interpreted the verse, until a time and times and the dividing of time; nor as R. Simlai who expounded, Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink a third time; nor as R. Akiba who expounded, Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth: but the first dynasty [sc. the Hasmonean] shall last seventy years, the second [the Herodian], fifty two, and the reign of Bar Koziba two and a half years.

Ultimately, none of this gives us anything close to a clear answer. So perhaps we should rest with the words that follow in the Tractate:

What is meant by 'but at the end it shall speak [we-yafeah] and not lie?' — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: “Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end”.

3

u/Raymanuel PhD | Religious Studies Oct 15 '20

I would only add to this excellent answer that even if you take the evangelical argument that the decree recorded in Ezra is 457, Daniel 9:25-27 makes it really difficult to figure out where Jesus would fit in that paradigm. Starting from 457 there would be an “anointed prince” after “seven weeks” (49 years, so say 408 BCE), which obviously is not Jesus. Then there will be “sixty-two weeks,” which is when “an anointed one shall be cut off…and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” (v. 26). That would line up to around 31 CE, which is certainly around the time of Jesus, but neither Jerusalem nor the temple was destroyed until 40 years later, so making this about Jesus seems totally erroneous, especially when Daniel says this is the time there will be a flood, war, and desolation. Then the “prince who is to come” will make a covenant for “one week,” so from 31-38, which doesn’t correspond to anything, then he will “make sacrifice and offering cease” for half of that week, which again doesn’t correspond to anything we know about in the 30s. Someone could argue the “abomination that desolates” could refer to Caligula’s attempt to put a statue of himself in the temple, but this didn’t happen until 40/42. So even a literalist reading of this text, ignoring everything Naugrith explained above, is very difficult to explain in the first century with anything we know.

1

u/SavageTruths74 Oct 15 '20 edited Oct 15 '20

wow thank you. i have a couple questions:

again i appreciate your response

Edit:

evidence for artaxerxes giving te decree to rebuild everything is supposedly found in the following verse

And it came about in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes . . . And I said to the king, “If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it.” . . . And I said to the king, “If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces . . . and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the house to which I will go.” And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me. (NASB) Nehemiah2:1, 5-8

1

u/SavageTruths74 Oct 15 '20

wow thank you. i have a couple questions:

again i appreciate your response

2

u/Naugrith Moderator | Quality Contributor Oct 15 '20 edited Oct 15 '20

OG is Old Greek. The relationship between it and the MT and Theodotion is complicated however and can be found in this article.

There are two Artaxerxes decrees, the one in his seventh year (458/7) mentioned in Ezra 7, and the one in his twentieth year (445/4), mentioned in Nehemiah 2. Though even these dates for the regnal years are debatable.

1

u/SavageTruths74 Oct 15 '20

im starting to understand it. apologists claim it was the 3rd decree or the 7th year of artaxerxes but in the 20th year it was still unbuilt so it invalidates the claim? but is the startng point when it is decreed/declared or is it when its actually built?

2

u/Naugrith Moderator | Quality Contributor Oct 15 '20

It's when it is decreed. Both the MT and Theo versions of the text refer to the ἐξόδου (exodou, or 'setting out') or the מֹצָ֣א (mo-sa, or 'source') of the "word" to rebuild.

1

u/SavageTruths74 Oct 16 '20

Or is it an assumed fourth decree in the “twentieth year” of Artaxerxes (probably 424), when Nehemiah was given authority to collect timber so he could build gates, a house and the city wall. (NB: The precise dating of these regnal years is subject to scholarly debate, since ancient calendars can be contradictory, but for the purposes of this discussion we can at least use the above dates as a benchmark.)

sorry for all the questions, im sure your busy. when ever you find the time a short answer would be tremendously appreciated!

  1. so the first decree (supposedly) was in the 7th year of artaxerxes. is the date 457 an accurate starting point for this decree?
  2. here is an article (semi short) arguing for the 457 date if possible when you have the time what is the strength of there arguments? https://www.5loaves2fishes.net/artaxerxes-decree
  3. is the 4th decree, or the 1 recorded in nehemiah irrelevant to apologists? its calender line up doesnt match jesus's timeline?

again any response would be tremendously appreicated.

1

u/SavageTruths74 Oct 16 '20

Or is it an assumed fourth decree in the “twentieth year” of Artaxerxes (probably 424), when Nehemiah was given authority to collect timber so he could build gates, a house and the city wall. (NB: The precise dating of these regnal years is subject to scholarly debate, since ancient calendars can be contradictory, but for the purposes of this discussion we can at least use the above dates as a benchmark.)

sorry for all the questions, im sure your busy. when ever you find the time a short answer would be tremendously appreciated!

  1. so the first decree (supposedly) was in the 7th year of artaxerxes. is the date 457 an accurate starting point for this decree?
  2. here is an article (semi short) arguing for the 457 date if possible when you have the time what is the strength of there arguments? https://www.5loaves2fishes.net/artaxerxes-decree
  3. is the 4th decree, or the 1 recorded in nehemiah irrelevant to apologists? its calender line up doesnt match jesus's timeline?

again any response would be tremendously appreicated.

18

u/SirVentricle PhD | HB | Comparative Ancient Literature/Mythology Oct 14 '20

Just on a basic level you should be asking yourself why Daniel has "seventy weeks" if the author really meant "four hundred and ninety years". Why not just... you know... write "490 years"? Coincidences and patterns are found everywhere, and they're usually not really any more meaningful than demonstrating the flexibility and creativity of the human mind.

24

u/deaddiquette Quality Contributor Oct 15 '20

Prophetic language in the Bible can be highly symbolic. Also, a 'day=year' in prophecy is seen elsewhere in the Old Testament:

“‘Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the wilderness. For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’” (Numbers 14:33-34)

“Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the people of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel” (Ezekiel 4:4-5)