When was the book of Daniel written?

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by Jason Hare »

I want to take issue with one thing, Rolf.
R.J. Furuli wrote:atheism is also a religious view
Atheism is a religious view in the same way watching from the stands is a position on the baseball field. I would agree that it is a philosophical position in response to one single question, a question which does determine the beginnings of one's religious allegiance. It does not, however, possess on its own a complete worldview. It is not an answer to the whole of human experience. It answers only one question in the negative: Does one believe in a god or gods? That's the only question it touches on, so it's not a religion.

Religions are comprehensive systems that include an answer to the question of the existence of a deity in addition to a set of moral values, a general list of "dos and don'ts" and social expectations, (generally) holiday obligations, etc.

I know that B-Hebrew isn't the place for the discussion of our religious views, and I hardly think it matters. Personally, whether I believe in God or not, I would still tend to go with the Jewish interpretation(s) of Daniel's writings.

We can talk about the meaning of Daniel's words all day long, but once we start laying them down on timetables and trying to piece them into world history to discover the identity of מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד or מָשִׁיחַ or נָגִיד (for Jewish interpretations identify a different person for each of these monikers), we go beyond where we should be going here on B-Hebrew. Again, this is my understanding of how the group wants to operate.

When we get into these types of issues, we cross over into the overlap that is generally occupied by attempts at proselytizing and missionizing. These are things that we want to avoid. I don't see how we can avoid it when discussing issues that have divided religious traditions so fiercely for generations. We're not going to bring our opponents to agreements, since how we understand these verses really comes down not to what the text says but to how our respective religious traditions have taught us to understand them.

It's like arguing about the prophecies of Nostradamus. We should focus on Hebrew and not on prophecy fulfillment. That's outside the bounds of the forum's purpose.

Regards,
Image
Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by kwrandolph »

SteveMiller wrote:I take the word to restore and to build Jerusalem as Cyrus' command (Isa 44:28).
I know it does not fit the secular chronology.
The Messiah is cut off 69 weeks after the command. So if Jesus' crucifixion was in 30 AD then 483 years prior would be 454 BC for Cyrus' command.
Where does it say that Messiah was to be cut off 69 sevens of years (483 years) after the command to rebuild Jerusalem?

Cyrus’ command was to allow Jews to return to Judea and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but no command specifically to rebuild the city itself.

Seventy sevens of years is recognized as 490 years, a unit. There’s no splitting apart of that interval in any Biblical (here including the New Testament) account. Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.

Besides the 490 year interval, there are two sub-intervals, one of 49 years, one of between 434 to 441 years.

The 49 years gets us within error distance to the birth of Alexander the Great, the “anointed leader” who took down the Persian empire. Who else would it be?

The phrase indicating when “Anointed” to be cut off is ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים יכרת משיח. Literally that means “after 62 sevens…” not “another 62 sevens…” If Daniel meant “another 62 sevens…” the Hebrew should have been ושבעים ששים ושנים אחרת יכרת משיח that would indicate that the one follows the other. As written, it indicates that this time line starts at the same time as the other two, i.e. at the time Nehemiah was commanded to rebuild Jerusalem. As written, this sub-interval is after 434 years, but before 441 years, not an exact date.

We need to take the Hebrew as it is written, not how we want it to be read.

My 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:I want to take issue with one thing, Rolf.
R.J. Furuli wrote:atheism is also a religious view
Atheism is a religious view in the same way watching from the stands is a position on the baseball field. I would agree that it is a philosophical position in response to one single question, a question which does determine the beginnings of one's religious allegiance. It does not, however, possess on its own a complete worldview. It is not an answer to the whole of human experience. It answers only one question in the negative: Does one believe in a god or gods? That's the only question it touches on, so it's not a religion.

Religions are comprehensive systems that include an answer to the question of the existence of a deity in addition to a set of moral values, a general list of "dos and don'ts" and social expectations, (generally) holiday obligations, etc.

I know that B-Hebrew isn't the place for the discussion of our religious views, and I hardly think it matters.
Your answer goes against linguistic and philosophic practice. Atheism is a religion according to those two. The modern English term “philosophy” is a synonym for “religion”. There are atheistic religions. Based on modern English usage, it’s illogical to claim that atheism is not a religion. My answer here is not a religious argument, rather is based on modern English linguistics. Because it is modern English linguistics and not Biblical Hebrew, this is all I’ll say on it.
Jason Hare wrote:Personally, whether I believe in God or not, I would still tend to go with the Jewish interpretation(s) of Daniel's writings.

We can talk about the meaning of Daniel's words all day long, but once we start laying them down on timetables and trying to piece them into world history to discover the identity of מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד or מָשִׁיחַ or נָגִיד (for Jewish interpretations identify a different person for each of these monikers), we go beyond where we should be going here on B-Hebrew. Again, this is my understanding of how the group wants to operate.

When we get into these types of issues, we cross over into the overlap that is generally occupied by attempts at proselytizing and missionizing. These are things that we want to avoid. I don't see how we can avoid it when discussing issues that have divided religious traditions so fiercely for generations. We're not going to bring our opponents to agreements, since how we understand these verses really comes down not to what the text says but to how our respective religious traditions have taught us to understand them.
Please be careful before accusing others of proselytizing. Discussing how one understands a passage is not the same as insisting that others accept our understanding. That’s why we have the practice on this list of “agree to disagree”.
Jason Hare wrote:It's like arguing about the prophecies of Nostradamus. We should focus on Hebrew and not on prophecy fulfillment. That's outside the bounds of the forum's purpose.
Here I have to disagree. Pointing out prophesy and events that happened later as fulfillment is part of focussing on the Hebrew language. Does the language actually describe what happened later? That’s a linguistic question.
Jason Hare wrote:Regards,
Image
Jason
My 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:Your answer goes against linguistic and philosophic practice. Atheism is a religion according to those two. The modern English term “philosophy” is a synonym for “religion”. There are atheistic religions. Based on modern English usage, it’s illogical to claim that atheism is not a religion. My answer here is not a religious argument, rather is based on modern English linguistics. Because it is modern English linguistics and not Biblical Hebrew, this is all I’ll say on it.
There are a few non-theistic religions in the world. They are religions because of what they entail, the way of life and ritual that they impose upon observers - not by virtue of their being atheistic. Again, the term atheism only seeks to answer one question. Under the umbrella of non-theism, you have a wide variety of personal opinions. There are humanistic religions (such as Humanistic Judaism) that do not profess a belief in God, but which are religious groups by any definition. However, it is not the atheism that makes it a religion. It is all the ritual and trapping quite apart from that one question. It is actually the height of absurdity to claim that atheism itself is a religion (just as "theism" is not a religion). Under "theism," one would adhere to a religion: to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam, to Hinduism, etc. Theism is not itself a religion. It simply answers one question: whether or not you believe that God or a god or gods exist(s). If you answer in the affirmative, you are a theist; if you answer in the negative or do not yield consent to the concept, you are an atheist (a non-theist). Where you go from there will determine whether you "believe" in something over and beyond that... and if you adhere to a religion. There are non-religious theists, and (again) religious atheists. Atheism is not a religion.

This position does not fly in the face of anything linguistic or historical. Atheism is the refusal of the positive claim that there is deity.
kwrandolph wrote:Please be careful before accusing others of proselytizing. Discussing how one understands a passage is not the same as insisting that others accept our understanding. That’s why we have the practice on this list of “agree to disagree”.
I didn't accuse anyone of proselytizing. I said that the discussion of topics which can only be agreed upon by agreement of doctrine will lead to proselytizing. I didn't say that anyone here had committed the act. My point is that the discussion of Daniel 9, for example, will ultimately lead to a stalemate since we all have different perspectives on every piece of this puzzle, and our pre-commitments generally determine the way in which we fit the pieces together. It is a discussion that is doomed to lead us to disagreement.
kwrandolph wrote:Here I have to disagree.
Only there? It seems like you disagreed with every point of my post. :D
kwrandolph wrote:Pointing out prophesy and events that happened later as fulfillment is part of focussing on the Hebrew language. Does the language actually describe what happened later? That’s a linguistic question.
Since when is prophecy fulfillment to be placed under the purview of linguistics? We can talk about the syntax, the meaning of the phrases, etc. We can even talk about the socio-historical context in which the words were spoken and what was going on at the time, but you're not going to convince me that arguing about whether or not Nostradamus predicted the fall of the World Trade Center is something of linguistic concern.

These questions are religious in nature. How we interpret the mystical words that predicted (or failed to predict) the coming of the Messiah. We may talk about the meaning of שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים, but offering interpretations about how they predicted the future is outside of the scope of the language per se.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by SteveMiller »

kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:I take the word to restore and to build Jerusalem as Cyrus' command (Isa 44:28).
I know it does not fit the secular chronology.
The Messiah is cut off 69 weeks after the command. So if Jesus' crucifixion was in 30 AD then 483 years prior would be 454 BC for Cyrus' command.
Where does it say that Messiah was to be cut off 69 sevens of years (483 years) after the command to rebuild Jerusalem?
Dan 9:25 ... From the going forth of the word to bring back and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. ...
26 And after the 62 sevens Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing ...
There are 7 sevens (49 years) and 62 sevens (434 years) until Messiah.
v26 says After the 62 sevens Messiah will be cut off. The definite article means that the 62 sevens here are the same 62 sevens as in the previous verse.
So the Messiah would be cut off after 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens = 483 years.
kwrandolph wrote:Cyrus’ command was to allow Jews to return to Judea and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but no command specifically to rebuild the city itself.
Isaiah 44:28 who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose'; saying of Jerusalem, 'She shall be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid.'" (ESV)
kwrandolph wrote:Seventy sevens of years is recognized as 490 years, a unit. There’s no splitting apart of that interval in any Biblical (here including the New Testament) account.
There are 3 divisions with the seventy sevens: 7, 62 and 1. The seventy sevens is the time apportioned to Israel and Jerusalem. When the Messiah is cut off after 69 sevens, that is a gigantic change and starts the time of the gentiles. When the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, Israel's final seven begins. This gap for the time of the gentiles is in almost every messianic prophesy in the Old Testament.
kwrandolph wrote:Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.
The 2nd 1/2 of v26 is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:
26b ... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ...
This event is outside of the 70 sevens of time given to Israel because the messiah is cut off after 69 sevens and the 70th seven begins with the start of the next verse.
I do not think that v27 fits the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. v27 takes place after v26 because it starts with a waw-consecutive.
The temple has been rebuilt in v27 because sacrifices are being offered for the first 1/2 of the seven years.
How can you make v27 fit the Roman destruction of Jerusalem?
kwrandolph wrote:The 49 years gets us within error distance to the birth of Alexander the Great, the “anointed leader” who took down the Persian empire. Who else would it be?
I find it very very strange if the annointed prince here as the major milestone of Israel's allotted time is Alexander. The real messiah is a much better choice. Also, when Alexander died he did not have nothing. He was probably the richest man in the world. When Jesus died, he had only the clothes he was wearing, and those were taken away.
kwrandolph wrote:The phrase indicating when “Anointed” to be cut off is ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים יכרת משיח. Literally that means “after 62 sevens…” not “another 62 sevens…” If Daniel meant “another 62 sevens…” the Hebrew should have been ושבעים ששים ושנים אחרת יכרת משיח that would indicate that the one follows the other. As written, it indicates that this time line starts at the same time as the other two, i.e. at the time Nehemiah was commanded to rebuild Jerusalem. As written, this sub-interval is after 434 years, but before 441 years, not an exact date.
I am not following you here. If v26 said, "after another 62 sevens" rather than "after the 62 sevens", that would mean another 62 sevens after the 62 sevens mentioned in the previous verse. It says "the 62 sevens" so you know it is the same 62 sevens as in v25.
kwrandolph wrote:We need to take the Hebrew as it is written, not how we want it to be read.
of course
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by Jason Hare »

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:I take the word to restore and to build Jerusalem as Cyrus' command (Isa 44:28).
I know it does not fit the secular chronology.
The Messiah is cut off 69 weeks after the command. So if Jesus' crucifixion was in 30 AD then 483 years prior would be 454 BC for Cyrus' command.
Where does it say that Messiah was to be cut off 69 sevens of years (483 years) after the command to rebuild Jerusalem?
Dan 9:25 ... From the going forth of the word to bring back and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. ...
26 And after the 62 sevens Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing ...
There are 7 sevens (49 years) and 62 sevens (434 years) until Messiah.
v26 says After the 62 sevens Messiah will be cut off. The definite article means that the 62 sevens here are the same 62 sevens as in the previous verse.
So the Messiah would be cut off after 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens = 483 years.
It says that a מָשִׁיחַ māšîaḥ will be cut off. Is the word māšîaḥ ever used in the Bible to refer to "the Messiah" (capital-M)? Do you not see an issue with translating māšîaḥ here as "the Messiah"?
SteveMiller wrote:There are 3 divisions with the seventy sevens: 7, 62 and 1. The seventy sevens is the time apportioned to Israel and Jerusalem. When the Messiah is cut off after 69 sevens, that is a gigantic change and starts the time of the gentiles. When the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, Israel's final seven begins. This gap for the time of the gentiles is in almost every messianic prophesy in the Old Testament.
When the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks. ] I think you mean "when an anointed one is cut off after the sixty-two weeks." It says that there would be seven weeks until the arrive of "an anointed ruler." Then it says that after sixty-two weeks, during which the city would be rebuilt, "an anointed one will be cut off and have naught." These are two different time periods (49 years and 434 years); thus, these are two different anointed ones - one labeled māšîaḥ and another labled māšîaḥ nāḡîḏ, just as the person labled only nāḡîḏ (that is, nāḡîḏ habbāʾ in verse 26) is a different person. Thus, the text has these divisions:

Year 0 - issuance of a word for Jerusalem's rebuilding
Year 49 - arrive of a māšîaḥ nāḡîḏ
Years 50 until 483 - period of the city being rebuilt
After year 483 - death of a māšîaḥ (a different person to above)
Year 483 - confirmation of a treaty
Years 483 until 486.5 - appearance of peace
Year 486.5 - invasion by nāḡîḏ (different to above) and cessation of temple offerings
Year 490 - end of the war and desolation of the city

This is what is laid out in the words of Daniel 9. We must regard the time periods established in the text and not confuse the different periods.
kwrandolph wrote:Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.
This is certainly the standard Jewish interpretation of the text - and it agrees with the segments of time in the prophecy as I've laid it out above. The problem is that it doesn't agree with the standard chronology and the years allowed in the Persian period, which are more years than allowed in the prophecy. Jewish timetables of this period have fewer years, and they (not surprisingly) agree with the times in Daniel's prophecy. (Perhaps this is by design?)
SteveMiller wrote:The 2nd 1/2 of v26 is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:
26b ... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ...
This event is outside of the 70 sevens of time given to Israel because the messiah is cut off after 69 sevens and the 70th seven begins with the start of the next verse.
Again, this is not how the text reads. In fact, it could be that the anointed one that is here cut off is the high priest at the time of the besiege of Jerusalem, who was removed from power and killed (IIRC).
SteveMiller wrote:I do not think that v27 fits the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. v27 takes place after v26 because it starts with a waw-consecutive.
I don't think we should be talking of vav-consecutives in prophetic text. This isn't narrative. It's not exactly applicable.
SteveMiller wrote:The temple has been rebuilt in v27 because sacrifices are being offered for the first 1/2 of the seven years.
How can you make v27 fit the Roman destruction of Jerusalem?
Desolation poured out on the city. Cessation of the temple offerings. There aren't a lot of details in the passage, but they certainly match what we know about what happened at the destruction of Jerusalem. What do you think doesn't match?

If we're giving our opinions on this chapter, I guess I may as well join in.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Your answer goes against linguistic and philosophic practice. Atheism is a religion according to those two. The modern English term “philosophy” is a synonym for “religion”. There are atheistic religions. Based on modern English usage, it’s illogical to claim that atheism is not a religion. My answer here is not a religious argument, rather is based on modern English linguistics. Because it is modern English linguistics and not Biblical Hebrew, this is all I’ll say on it.
… However, it is not the atheism that makes it a religion. It is all the ritual and trapping quite apart from that one question. …
Where did you learn English? I can understand your answer if you are a non-native speaker of English. The modern English term “religion” is defined so broadly that it includes atheism as religion. This is a linguistic answer, not an answer based on opinion.
Jason Hare wrote:This position does not fly in the face of anything linguistic or historical. Atheism is the refusal of the positive claim that there is deity.
Atheism is the positive claim that there is no deity.

The real antithesis of theism (the positive claim that there’s a deity) is not atheism (the positive claim that there’s no deity), but agnosticism (I don’t know, and I don’t care).
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Please be careful before accusing others of proselytizing. … That’s why we have the practice on this list of “agree to disagree”.
I didn't accuse anyone of proselytizing. I said that the discussion of topics which can only be agreed upon by agreement of doctrine will lead to proselytizing.
That’s not true. Your continuation of your paragraph says why we have the practice of “agree to disagree”.
Jason Hare wrote:I didn't say that anyone here had committed the act. My point is that the discussion of Daniel 9, for example, will ultimately lead to a stalemate since we all have different perspectives on every piece of this puzzle, and our pre-commitments generally determine the way in which we fit the pieces together. It is a discussion that is doomed to lead us to disagreement.
kwrandolph wrote:Here I have to disagree.
Only there? It seems like you disagreed with every point of my post. :D
Thanks for the bit of humor.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Pointing out prophesy and events that happened later as fulfillment is part of focussing on the Hebrew language. Does the language actually describe what happened later? That’s a linguistic question.
Since when is prophecy fulfillment to be placed under the purview of linguistics?
When a claim is made that a certain event fulfilled a certain prophesy, it is a linguistic question whether or not that prophesy actually described the event. That analysis of the prophesy includes the meanings of words, phrases, syntax, etc. all of which are linguistic questions.
Jason Hare wrote:We can talk about the syntax, the meaning of the phrases, etc. We can even talk about the socio-historical context in which the words were spoken and what was going on at the time, but you're not going to convince me that arguing about whether or not Nostradamus predicted the fall of the World Trade Center is something of linguistic concern.
Don’t bring up Nostradamus for many reasons.
Jason Hare wrote:These questions are religious in nature. How we interpret the mystical words that predicted (or failed to predict) the coming of the Messiah.
From a linguistic analysis of the prophesy in question. Did the prophesy actually say what is claimed about the prophesy? These are not “mystical words”.
Jason Hare wrote:We may talk about the meaning of שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים, but offering interpretations about how they predicted the future is outside of the scope of the language per se.
Offering interpretations of Biblical Hebrew passages is just as valid for prophesy as for any other genera of literature in Tanakh. Interpretations can lead to disagreement, and “agree to disagree”.

My 2¢

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:Where did you learn English? I can understand your answer if you are a non-native speaker of English. The modern English term “religion” is defined so broadly that it includes atheism as religion. This is a linguistic answer, not an answer based on opinion.
If you have problems understanding what I have written, it is in your comprehension and not in my composition. I don't care what you think the colloquial use of "religion" might imply. "Atheism is a religion," Bill Maher says, "just like abstinence is a sexual act." Atheism is the lack of religious persuasion.
kwrandolph wrote:Atheism is the positive claim that there is no deity.
Nonsense. Atheism is a negative answer to the question of whether or not one BELIEVES in a god. That is, an atheist says "I do not believe in a God." There is a degree of atheism which claims that there is no God in which to believe. Most atheists are far more sensible than to claim that they have knowledge or experience that encompasses all evidence in the universe. They say only that no evidence has been presented which has persuaded them that the existence of God is either proven or very likely. I don't know what atheists you've had these conversations with, but you have a poor view of what atheism is.
kwrandolph wrote:The real antithesis of theism (the positive claim that there’s a deity) is not atheism (the positive claim that there’s no deity), but agnosticism (I don’t know, and I don’t care).
Agnosticism is also not the antithesis of religion. One may be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is an answer to a different question. Namely, "Is there enough evidence to make a determination regarding the existence of God?" An agnostic theist will answer, "I do not believe that we have enough evidence to establish God's existence, but I believe nonetheless." An agnostic atheist will answer, "I do not believe that we have enough evidence to establish whether or not God exists, but I am not convinced of his existence."

Atheism rejects the claim of God's existence (but does not, by definition, declare God's non-existence).
Agnosticism rejects the claim that there is sufficient evidence for God's existence.

I was for many years an agnostic theist. I believed that the Torah was given from heaven through Moses's hand. Did I have evidence for this? No. Nor did I claim to have evidence. I stated plainly that my trust in Torah was completely a choice I made on faith. I believed in God quite apart from evidence.

Today, I have the same position on the evidence for or against God's existence. That is, I do not believe that any evidence has as yet been put forward that really confirms the existence of God. The difference is that I no longer put confidence in the existence of God and the divinity of the Torah. I do not tell people that God doesn't exist, but I do not believe in (give consent to) his existence. I'm an agnostic atheist, and I do not participate in religion.

I'm sorry that you bear a less-than-informed estimation of this very basic question. Then again, most people who despise a position fail to truly understand it.
kwrandolph wrote:My 2¢
I think the two cents has been spent already in these comments.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by kwrandolph »

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:I take the word to restore and to build Jerusalem as Cyrus' command (Isa 44:28).
I know it does not fit the secular chronology.
The Messiah is cut off 69 weeks after the command. So if Jesus' crucifixion was in 30 AD then 483 years prior would be 454 BC for Cyrus' command.
Where does it say that Messiah was to be cut off 69 sevens of years (483 years) after the command to rebuild Jerusalem?
Dan 9:25 ... From the going forth of the word to bring back and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. ...
Are you saying that after the command went out to rebuild Jerusalem, that nothing was done for 49 years?

Or were the first 49 years of the 62 sevens concurrent with the span until the anointed leader?
SteveMiller wrote:26 And after the 62 sevens Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing ...
There are 7 sevens (49 years) and 62 sevens (434 years) until Messiah.
Where is the linguistic clue that the 62 sevens come after the seven sevens?
SteveMiller wrote:v26 says After the 62 sevens Messiah will be cut off. The definite article means that the 62 sevens here are the same 62 sevens as in the previous verse.
I’ll grant you that. But the verse says “After the 62 sevens…”, but the context indicates before 63 sevens, giving us 434 + 1 to 441 - 1 years for the death of Messiah.
SteveMiller wrote:So the Messiah would be cut off after 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens = 483 years.
Where do you get the “+”?
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Cyrus’ command was to allow Jews to return to Judea and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but no command specifically to rebuild the city itself.
Isaiah 44:28 who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose'; saying of Jerusalem, 'She shall be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid.'" (ESV)
The ESV is wrong. The use of the Yiqtol indicates “can” or “should”, but not “shall”.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Seventy sevens of years is recognized as 490 years, a unit. There’s no splitting apart of that interval in any Biblical (here including the New Testament) account.
There are 3 divisions with the seventy sevens: 7, 62 and 1.
There are two divisions—7 and 62+. That leaves us with less than one, unless the 62+ is concurrent with the 7 instead of consecutive.
SteveMiller wrote:The seventy sevens is the time apportioned to Israel and Jerusalem. When the Messiah is cut off after 69 sevens, that is a gigantic change and starts the time of the gentiles. When the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, Israel's final seven begins. This gap for the time of the gentiles is in almost every messianic prophesy in the Old Testament.
That supposed gap is nowhere in this prophesy.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.
The 2nd 1/2 of v26 is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:
26b ... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ...
This event is outside of the 70 sevens of time given to Israel because the messiah is cut off after 69 sevens and the 70th seven begins with the start of the next verse.
I do not think that v27 fits the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. v27 takes place after v26 because it starts with a waw-consecutive.
The waw doesn’t indicate that verse 27 describes actions that take place after verse 26.
SteveMiller wrote:The temple has been rebuilt in v27 because sacrifices are being offered for the first 1/2 of the seven years.
How can you make v27 fit the Roman destruction of Jerusalem?
As a continuation of verse 26, one that expands on the actions. It took seven years for the Romans to put down the Jewish revolt והגביר ברית לרבים שבוע אחד half-way through that effort the temple was destroyed, stopping sacrifices חצי השבוע ישבית זבח ומנחה.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:The 49 years gets us within error distance to the birth of Alexander the Great, the “anointed leader” who took down the Persian empire. Who else would it be?
I find it very very strange if the annointed prince here as the major milestone of Israel's allotted time is Alexander. The real messiah is a much better choice. Also, when Alexander died he did not have nothing. He was probably the richest man in the world. When Jesus died, he had only the clothes he was wearing, and those were taken away.
Are you claiming that Jesus was at least 385 years old at the time he was crucified?

The word משיח is used for several individuals, not just Messiah. It is even used for Cyrus who never was a believer Isaiah 55:1. So why not also for Alexander the Great?
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:The phrase indicating when “Anointed” to be cut off is ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים יכרת משיח. Literally that means “after 62 sevens…” not “another 62 sevens…” If Daniel meant “another 62 sevens…” the Hebrew should have been ושבעים ששים ושנים אחרת יכרת משיח that would indicate that the one follows the other. As written, it indicates that this time line starts at the same time as the other two, i.e. at the time Nehemiah was commanded to rebuild Jerusalem. As written, this sub-interval is after 434 years, but before 441 years, not an exact date.
I am not following you here. If v26 said, "after another 62 sevens" rather than "after the 62 sevens", that would mean another 62 sevens after the 62 sevens mentioned in the previous verse. It says "the 62 sevens" so you know it is the same 62 sevens as in v25.
What I emphasize is that the אחר is in the wrong place for it to indicate a consecutive time period.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:We need to take the Hebrew as it is written, not how we want it to be read.
of course
Just my 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: When was the book of Daniel written?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Where did you learn English? I can understand your answer if you are a non-native speaker of English. The modern English term “religion” is defined so broadly that it includes atheism as religion. This is a linguistic answer, not an answer based on opinion.
If you have problems understanding what I have written, it is in your comprehension and not in my composition. I don't care what you think the colloquial use of "religion" might imply. "Atheism is a religion," … Atheism is the lack of religious persuasion.
Obviously you don’t know the English language that well. Pick up almost any good dictionary, including the one built into the Macintosh OS, and you’ll find that “religion” is defined in such a way that atheism is religion.

I won’t argue with someone who won’t do his homework.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply