Introduction
In the first article we examined the critical interpretation of the Seventy Week prophecy, which attempts to interpret the prophecy in the light of the Maccabean revolt with particular emphasis on the figure of Onias III. We saw that these attempts were not convincing and in several cases went against the plain meaning of the text.
In this article we continue our examination of exegetical problems in the text and propose an alternative to the critical interpretation. This consideration will ultimately lead us to Jesus of Nazareth.
The Dispensation for Jerusalem
The opening line of the Seventy Week Prophecy,
Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city … Dan 9:24 (NKJV)
is most naturally understood dispensationally; the seventy weeks are the length set by God for that era of the Jewish people and their city. This reading seems confirmed by the fact that the seventy-weeks commence with “the command to restore and build Jerusalem”, and that they end with the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary”. Therefore the focus of the seventy-week prophecy is the Jewish people, centered on the city of Jerusalem. This focus helps us determine the terminus ad quo and terminus ad quem of the seventy-weeks. The seventy-weeks ends with the destruction of Jerusalem. This did not take place in 164 BC;[1] Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.
The terminus ad quo, “the command [lit. ‘word’] to restore and build Jerusalem”, must be dated to the issue of some decree which instigated the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Though Cyrus’ decree in c.538 is contemporary with the date ascribed to Daniel 9, this cannot be a suitable candidate as it is solely concerned with the reconstruction of the Temple.[2] Daniel 9:25 does not mention the reconstruction of the Temple but rather specifies the reconstruction of “the street” and “the wall”.[3] Whether or not any reconstruction of the city took place beforehand, it is recorded in the book of Nehemiah that by c.445 the wall of Jerusalem still lay in ruins (Neh 1:3). It is at this time that, according to the book of Nehemiah, Artaxerxes I gives letters to Nehemiah for the purpose of returning to Jerusalem to reconstruct the wall (Neh 2:7-8).
The Masoretic Accents of Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. Dan 9:25 (NKJV)
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. Dan 9:25 (ESV)
The two versions presented above represent the two sides of debate regarding the correct interpretation of this verse; the dispute is centred on the Masoretic accents. In the Masoretic text (MT) “seven weeks” and “sixty two weeks” are divided by an ‘athnach mark, “the strongest disjunctive Masoretic accent mark”.[4][5] The disjunction would generally be interpreted by placing the two phrases into separate clauses (cf. ESV), rather than conjoining them (cf. NKJV). While this disjunction is a feature of the Masoretic accents (added between sixth and ninth centuries AD), and not original to the consonantal text, we cannot disregard this reading (presumably based upon scribal tradition) without justification.
One textual witness against the MT accent choice is the Greek text (θ’), incorrectly designated by some as the Theodotion version of Daniel,[6] which conjoins seven and sixty-two weeks. The Vulgate follows θ’;[7] the LXX version of Daniel, as preserved in Codex Chisianus, is also a textual witness to the conjoining of these two periods,[8] though this translation is so free that great weight cannot be attached to it.
Perhaps the strongest argument against the Masoretic accent choice is that it separates the anointed one of v. 25 from the anointed one of v. 26 by a period of 434 years. Though it is possible that the author intends to allude to two separate anointed ones, this seems implausible since all we are told about the first anointed one is that he is anointed. If we removed or weakened the Masoretic accent, then we would naturally identify both anointed ones as the same figure.[9]
The conjoining of the seven-weeks and the sixty-two weeks may seem a little awkward but it is clearly what is intended. The seven-weeks is the period of the reconstruction of Jerusalem. The sixty-two weeks is the period during which Jerusalem shall stand before the coming of the “anointed one”.
The Anointed One
There is no precedent in the OT for the use of xyvm (mashiyach, “anointed one”, “Messiah”) as a title for the high priest. It is true that the word ‘mashiyach’ was on occasion used adjectively about the priests (cf. Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22; χριστων ίερέων—2 Mac 1:10), but no priest is ever referred to as the anointed. The expression “the anointed”, and its equivalents (“the Lord’s anointed”, “his anointed”, etc.), is almost exclusively reserved for the king of Israel, specifically Saul (1 Sam 12:3, 5; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16, 21) and David (2 Sam 19:21; 22:51; 23:1; 2 Chron 6:42; Ps 18:50; 20:6; 89: 38, 51), and, more generally, as a synonym for the office of king (2 Sam 2:10, 35; Ps 2:2; 132:10, 17; cf. Ps 84:9; Lam 4:20). The notable exception is the prophecy regarding Cyrus.[10] Though this is often interpreted typologically as referring to the Messiah, we should allow that mashiyach is not directly synonymous for “king of Israel”, and is also applied to those appointed to do the will of God.[11]
Daniel 9:24-27 gives little reason for interpreting mashiyach as a title for a high priest against OT precedent. Though the sanctuary and the offerings are mentioned, the focus of the prophecy is the restoration of Jerusalem and the nation. In this context we would more naturally expect reference to the restoration of the nation’s king rather than its priests. This is confirmed by the fact that the mashiyach is also described as dygn (nagiyd, “a prince”, “a ruler”). The term ‘nagiyd’ is used frequently to refer to the king[12] but never for the office of high priest.[13] Therefore the mashiyach nagiyd should be interpreted as the restored king of Jerusalem: the Davidic Messiah.
The Purpose of the Seventy-Weeks
The angel Gabriel lists six objectives to be achieved during the seventy-week dispensation. These are listed as [NKJV]:
| to finish the transgression | to bring in everlasting righteousness |
| to make an end of sins | to seal up vision and prophecy |
| to make reconciliation for iniquity | to anoint the most holy |
It has been noted that these six can be divided into three negative and three positive objectives. It has been suggested that these two sequences run in parallel (as above) the positive answering the negative.
The first three objectives regard [vp (pesha, “transgression”), hajx chatta’ah (“sins”) and !w[ (‘avon, “iniquity”). Pesha can refer both to personal sins and national rebellion; chatta’ah can also be used of both personal and national sins,[14] but is also frequently translated “sin offering” (116 times in KJV). As this passage follows Daniel’s prayer confessing the sins of his people, we might suppose that it is Israel’s rebellion against God that is intended. However, in his prayer, Daniel specifies his peoples’ sins as breaking the commandments (Dan 9:5, 11) and connects them with his own sins (Dan 9:20), so it is probable that Daniel has individual transgressions in mind; this is supported by the use of ‘avon. Further, the fact that these three negative clauses are followed by “to bring in everlasting righteousness” suggests that abolition of sin described here is final and universal.
If the first clause (“to finish transgression”) is interpreted as the end of all sin, then the second follows logically. The sin-offerings are brought to an end because where there is no sin there is no need for a sin offering. The third clause, “to make reconciliation (rpk kaphar) for iniquity”, may be interpreted in several ways. The root kaphar means “to cover”, and in this instance refers to the covering of sin; hence, “to make reconciliation” (NKJV) or “to atone for” (ESV). The question is: Who is the subject of the verb, and hence the one doing the covering? As Young summarizes:
If the subject who covers is a priest, the meaning is to cover the sinner (usually) by means of a propitiatory sacrifice, hence, to make atonement or reconciliation. If God is the subject, it means to forgive, i.e., to regard as covered (cf. Jer. 18:23; Ps. 65:3). In this present instance, it is difficult to make this distinction, since no subject is mentioned.[15]
The subject may be determined from the context: if Gabriel were referring to the normal rituals of the Temple, then the high priest would be subject; however, since the passage gives an impression of finality then a human priest cannot be the subject as his ‘covering’ has to be repeated every year. The implication is that it is God who will ‘cover’ the iniquity.
“To seal up (~tx chatham) vision and prophecy” has generally been interpreted either as the ratification of prophecy (by its fulfillment)[16] or the end of prophecy.[17] However, neither of these suggestions reflects the usage of chatham elsewhere in Daniel:
“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal [chatham] the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase”. Dan 12:4 (NKJV)
And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed [chatham] till the time of the end”. Dan 12:9 (NKJV)
The “words” sealed presumably refers to the visions and prophecies given to Daniel. In this context ‘sealing’ does not seem to refer to either their ratification or their completion. Instead the “sealing” seems to imply that the meaning of the visions is hidden until “the time of the end”.[18] If this reasoning is sound then “to seal up vision and prophecy” would imply that a period when vision and prophecy is not understood, when its meaning is hidden. It is possible that the “seventy weeks” is the intended period when the true interpretation of prophecy (this prophecy?) would be not understood.
The referent of the phrase “the most holy” (~yvdq vdq) is not immediately obvious. The phrase “the most holy place” is used frequently in the OT to denote the innermost part of the Tabernacle, and the Temple, in which the Ark of Covenant dwelt (Exod 26:33; Num 18:10; 1 Kgs 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 1 Chron 6:49; 2 Chron 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7; Ezek 41:4; 45:3). It is also used adjectively (more frequently) with reference to offerings, altars and places that are dedicated to God, that is “the most holy things” (Exod 30:10, 29, 36; 40:10; Lev 2:3, 10; 6:25, 29; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17; 14:13; 24:9; 27:28; Num 18:19; Ezek 43:12; 48:12). This second usage can be applied to anything, even people.[19]
In these instances it is the context that determines the referent; however, there is no word in Dan 9:24 indicating that “the most holy” is a location or a person. Contextually, rendering the Hebrew as “a/the most holy place” (RSV, NASB) would seem inconsistent as the seventy-weeks culminates with the destruction of the sanctuary, not its anointing. Similarly, the anointed prince is specifically designated by his anointing, and there is no warrant for assigning this specific referent to “the most holy”. Without the definite article, the reference is more likely to be most holy things; if not physical items of the sanctuary (destroyed), then an order of holiness.
The Messiah Cut Off
And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself. Dan 9:26a (NKJV)
The verb “cut off” (trk karath) can refer to any action of cutting whether it is of food (i.e. chewing), meat (i.e. butchery), people (i.e. killing) or any object. It can also be used of severance from the congregation (i.e. exile; cf. Exod 12:19); it is frequently used for penal execution in the Law of Moses.
The phrase “but not for himself” (NKJV) is disputed and is variously translated: “and shall have nothing” (ESV), “appearing to have accomplished nothing” (NLT), “and will have no-one” (NIV footnote), “no-one shall take his part” (REB), etc. The LXX translates this phrase as “and shall not be”, while the θ’ gives καί κρίμα ούκ έ̉στιν ε̉ν αυ̉τω (lit. “and there is no judgment in him”) implying that he is killed unjustly (cf. GNB) and the Vulgate: et non erit eius populus, qui eum negaturus est (“and there will not be a people of him, who is about to deny him”). E. J. Young takes the phrase to imply that “the anointed one” shall die without all that properly belongs to him,[20] and N. W. Porteous, that he shall die without trial.[21]
Taking the MT text, we could render the whole clause as implying that the one cut off gained nothing for himself through his death (cf. NKJV). However, the phrase might more naturally be read as referring to the situation of his death and not the resultant state of affairs (cf. “and none shall help him” Dan 11:45).
The Hebrew literally rendered is “and there is not to him” or “he does not have”, yet it appears to be without an object. Every possible translation we have considered attempts to a supply an object: accomplishment (NLT), defenders (NIV fn; REB; cf. Vulgate), life (LXX), condemnation (θ’), anything (ESV). Some translators take the object from the following clause, e.g. “and the city and the sanctuary are not his” (YLT), though this seems improbable. If we assume that a word was omitted then the θ’, as an early textual witness, may well preserve the original.[22] If we do not supply an object then the phrase may refer to an all-surpassing loss at the moment of death (cf. “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Matt 27:46).
Jerusalem Destroyed
And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. Dan 9:26b (NKJV)
It is improbable that “the prince who is to come” is the same as “the anointed prince” since the latter’s death is recorded early in the verse. The expression “the prince who is to come” may be compared with expressions such as “a king shall arise” (Dan 7:24; 8:23; 11:2-3), and is similarly employed to create a sense of mystery. The “people” in this context presumably refers to his nation, or more specifically, his nation’s army.
The word “flood” (@jv sheteph) is used metaphorically for armed conflict, as elsewhere (cf. Dan 11:22), possibly indicating that the city’s defenders are outnumbered and overwhelmed. The “desolations” (~mv shamem) are “determined” or “decreed” presumably refers to the atrocities of war.
A Covenant
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. Dan 9:27a (NKJV)
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Dan 9:27a (ESV)
Laato proposes that v. 27 is not the original ending of the Seventy Week Prophecy, arguing that there is a disharmony between verses 26 and 27 since the latter assumes the Temple is still standing while the former prophesies its destruction.[23] Though evidence for this proposition is not strong, it is clear that v. 27 does not follow chronologically from v. 26 and presumably intended to be read retrospectively.
The ‘he’ has no clear referent; conceivably it could refer to “the anointed prince” or “the prince who is to come”.
The ESV implies that a covenant is made at the beginning of the last ‘week’, while the NKJV implies that it is a preexisting covenant that it confirmed. This latter translation is the more probable given the use of rbg gabar (“confirm”, “strengthen”), rather than !tn nathan (“give”; cf. Gen 9:12; 17:2) or trk karath (“make”; cf. Gen 26:28; 31:44). As such, this phrase is unlikely to imply the making of temporary military alliance. The possibility that this is the Abrahamic covenant cannot be ruled out. In fact, the confirming of that covenant, which expresses God’s relationship with the nation of Israel, would be consistent with the dispensational view of this prophecy.
To “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” is often interpreted as a negative consequence,[24] as is the case in other visions of Daniel (cf. Dan 8:11; 12:11). Yet here, in contrast to the other examples, there is no mention of the sacrifices being restored, rather there is a sense of finality entailed in tbv shabath (“bring an end to”).[25] If chatta’ah in v. 24 is interpreted as referring to the sin-offering then this final removal of the sacrifices and offerings would be the fulfillment of one of the objectives listed by Gabriel, and consistent with the final “covering” of sin.
Seen in this light, then, these two clauses become positive consequences, which implies that the “he” is either God Himself or, more probably, his servant “the anointed prince”.
The Consummation
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. Dan 9:27b (NKJV)
“Wing” (@nk kanaph) is usually used figuratively in the OT and this is likely the case here, though literal fulfillments have been suggested.[26] Various interpretations have been offered including, “overspreading” (KJV), “protection” (Darby) (cf. Ps 17:8), and the wing or corner of the Temple (NIV, HCSB) (cf. Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2).[27] However, the phraseology seems to suggest that “the wing of abominations” is not a location but rather a chronological sequence, hence “upon the wings of…”,[28] and even, “as a climax to …” (NLT). Upon this basis it has been argued that the “abominations” are not necessarily deeds committed by the “one who makes desolate”. P. J. Ray has argued that the coming of the desolator is a consequence of the “abominations”, rather than the cause, interpreting “abominations” as the idolatrous practices of the Jewish people.[29] Following-up the usage of the words “abomination” (#wqv shiqquwts) and “desolate” (~mv shamem) through the OT certainly seems to add weight to this conclusion. Shamem is frequently used to describe Jerusalem and the Temple after divine judgment (cf. Dan 9:18; also Lev 26:31-5; Jer 19:1-8; 32:36, 42-44), while shiqquwts is used to describe the sins of people preceding such judgment (cf. Ezek 5:11; 7:20; 11:18). On the other hand, the connection with the “abomination of desolation” (cf. Dan 11:31; 12:11)[30] is apparent and this is “set up” by a foreign power. This phrase, therefore, may indicate no more than that many abominations (i.e. sacrilegious acts) will feature in the coming of the desolator.
“Consummation, which is determined”, or “the decreed end” (ESV), probably points to the end of the seventy-weeks and therefore the end of the dispensation. What is not clear is whether this also marks the end (i.e. death) of the “one who makes desolate”. The object of this final clause, shamem, may refer to either the one who makes desolate (ESV; NLT; HCSB; NIV; NASB) or the one who is made desolate (NKJV; YLT; ASV; Darby; Websters). Interestingly, both the Greek versions translate this final clause as meaning the end of the desolation: “a consummation will be granted to the desolation” (LXX); “an end shall be put to the desolation” (θ’). Since there is no reference here to a second restoration of the city and the sanctuary then it is unlikely that this last clause should be interpreted as dramatic reversal of their desolation. Rather, as this is the end of the seventy-weeks, the desolation should be final. Therefore it is most consistent to interpret this clause as the end “poured out” on the city and sanctuary.
Summary
Jeremiah’s prophecy prophesied a period of seventy years in which Judah, and the surrounding nations would be under the dominion of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and the Jews would be in captivity. The prophecy had personal relevance to Daniel, who had been in captivity for the duration of this seventy year period and he responds with prayer and supplication. This is no doubt one of the reasons why it is Daniel who is visited by the angel Gabriel with a further revelation.
Juxtaposed against the seventy years of captivity, there are to be seventy year-weeks of a restored nation. Though ultimately this period is to end with the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem, the prophecy hints at a higher purpose. Sin, and the offerings for sin, is to be done away with and the complete covering made for sin. The end of this seventy year-weeks should usher in, directly or indirectly, a period of everlasting righteousness.
The seventy year-weeks commenced with the decree giving permission to the Jews to rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem c.445 BC. The initial seven year-weeks presumably refer to this period rebuilding. While we have no fixed date for the formal end of construction, or any other relevant event, that might mark the end of the seven weeks, the phrase “troublesome times” is pertinent to Nehemiah’s account of the reconstruction. The sixty-two year-weeks are given no description, except that they are to end with the anointed prince, that is, the coming of the Davidic Messiah. This period, therefore, is that period when Jerusalem is to dwell in relative security but without a legitimate king. Though Jerusalem was threatened and captured many times in the intertestamental period, the city and the Temple remained until the renewed building work for Herod the Great. And though, after the Maccabean revolt, a monarchy was established in Judaea, it was not an heir of David who sat upon the throne.
It is the final week that is described in the greatest detail. The week commences with the coming of the Messiah and, presumably through his efforts, an attempt is made to renew the covenant. Since this week ends with the destruction of the city, it seems this covenantal renewal fails. It may be that what is intended here is almost an ultimatum, the last attempt to renew the Jewish people before the determined end. In the middle of the week an end is made to the offerings to sin, implying that a complete covering has been made for iniquity. Though the cutting off of the Messiah is not dated, it is legitimate to correlate it with this act of covering, as it is he who is bringing an end of the offerings for sin. If we assume that a prophetic year is used (i.e. 360 days) then, regardless of disputes about exact dating of specific events, there is a figure at the end of the sixty-two year-weeks who answers to the criteria laid out in this prophecy. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Messiah, preached to the Jewish people urging restoration of the true worship of God and was killed – an act which he and his followers claimed was to bring about atonement for sin. The coincidence of details, not least chronological, is extremely compelling.
The final half-week is characterized by abominations till the coming of some ruler who will come with war against Jerusalem. Ultimately the city is overcome and is destroyed, bringing an end to the seventy year-week dispensation for the Jewish people.
Conclusion
The “critical” interpretation of Daniel 9 is neither convincing nor compelling. Whilst it is understandable as an attempt to position the chapter in a Maccabean context, it can only be sustained by doing damage to the plain meaning of the text. The “conservative” interpretation is rich and powerful. The enigmatic language of the prophecy does create the potential for ambiguity that is exploited by “critical” interpreters, e.g. interpreting “anointed one” as a priest, rather than Messiah. However, it takes little investigation to demonstrate how weak the “critical” interpretation is.
In this two-part article we have explored the Seventy Week Prophecy and found the “conservative” approach to be the more compelling. We are also examined some of the proposed difficulties, including the Masoretic accents and the basis upon which the time periods are calculated. We have found that neither is an insurmountable obstacle to the interpretation. The remaining difficulty is that Jerusalem was not destroyed 3 ½ years after the Crucifixion. Almost all conservative scholars propose some kind of gap or breach in the prophecy, and viewed from a dispensational perspective this is intelligible. The preaching of John the Baptist, and Jesus himself, is empowered by the presentation of the impending doom to come upon the Jewish people – “the ax is laid to the root of the trees”. Like the message of Jonah to Nineveh, John and Jesus called to the Jews to repentance; if the Jews, like the people Nineveh, repented (or if sufficient number did so), is it not plausible that the “dispensation” should be extended until truly no good fruit could be found?
[1] J. A. Montgomery proposes that “destruction” (shachath) in 9:26b may refer to moral corruption, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 383.
[2] “…let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord …” (Ezra 1:3). V. S. Poythress argues that Cyrus did say that Jerusalem itself should also be rebuilt on the basis of passages in Isaiah: “he will say of Jerusalem ‘Let it be rebuilt’” (Isa 44:28) and “he will rebuild my city” (Isa 45:13). Poythress also cites the evidence of the letter of Cyrus recorded by Josephus, which gives leave to the Jews to “rebuild their city” (Antiquities XI.1.3). Poythress’ remarks are influenced by his acceptance of a principle he calls “narrow hermeneutics”, which stipulates that Daniel 9 must be interpreted in only in the light of sources available to a Jew c.538. Though such principles may be useful in the interpretation of some OT texts, it cannot be applied dogmatically in this context, since the author intends to prophesy beyond his contemporary context. See V. S. Poythress, “Hermeneutical Factors in Determining the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:25)” Trinity Journal 6/2 (1985): 131-149, (134-137).
[3] Many modern translations render #wrx (charuts, “wall” (NKJV)) as “moat” (ESV) or “trench” (NIV). The word #wrx derives from the root verb “to cut” or “to decide”, and would most naturally be understood as an incision, and thus as a trench. However, in this context such a translation is problematic as #wrx follows the verb “build”; one does not build a trench. The old Greek text of Daniel, θ’, renders #wrx as τειχος teichos (“wall”). In any case, it is improbable that “moat” is intended since there is no record of Jerusalem having a moat either in the days of the kings or in the time of Nehemiah, and the only moat discovered in archaeological excavations of Jerusalem dates from the time of Herod. See L. B. Paton, “Jerusalem in Bible Times” The Biblical World 30.3 (1907): 162/167-178 (167), and B. E. Schein, “The Second Wall of Jerusalem” The Biblical Archaeologist 44.1 (1981): 21-26 (25-6).
[4] R. W. Pierce, “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9” Trinity Journal 10:2 (1989): 211-222 (213).
[5] [ED. AP]: The strength of the athnach accent is disputed. The standard work, J. D. Price, The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 27; Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 27, makes the accent a level II disjunctive accent along with Silluq but behind the level I Soph Pasuq. The disjunctive accent athnach is found (4x) with ‘seven’ in Exod 25:27; 37:23; Neh 7:67 and Ezra 2:65, where a separate clause follows. However, in none of these cases is the following clause straightaway a number and so they are not directly comparable to Dan 9:25.
[Ed. JWA]: In the last two decades a new school of “Delimitation Criticism” has arisen, devoted to highlighting the importance (as they see it) of a long- ignored tool for interpretation: unit delimitation markers in ancient manuscripts. E.g., evident in pre-Masoretic Qumran mss, textual subdivision into meaningful units by means of spacing and marginal signs. In the mediaeval period there is the addition of distinctive accents and opening (petuHah) and closing (setumah) section markers, as found in the Hebrew text of Masoretic manuscripts like the Codex Leningradensis (1009 A.D.). See M. Korpel and J. Oesch, eds. Delimitation Criticism, , Pericope 1: Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity (Utrecht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2000).
[6] [Ed. AP]: Scholars are currently debating the relationship of Theodotion to the Old Greek Daniel, i.e. the extent of his work on the Old Greek—see K. H. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 41-42.
[7] Montgomery claims that θ’ is in error here, though produces no justification for this assertion (Montgomery, Daniel, 392).
[8] “and after seven and seventy and sixty-two an anointing shall be removed” (Dan 9:26 LXX).
[9] We may speculate that the reason for the Masoretes to add the athnach disjunction in this segment was to preclude the Christian interpretation.
[10] “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held” (Isa 45:1). The mashiyach of Dan 9:25 cannot be Cyrus, as some have suggested, since in v. 26 the mashiyach is cut off shortly before the fall of Jerusalem.
[11] cf. 1 Kgs 19:15-17; also see 1 Chron 16:22 and Hab 3:13, which refer to a plural “anointed ones”, i.e. the people of God.
[12] Saul: 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; David: 1 Sam 25:50; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 7:8; 1 Chron 11:2; 17:7; Solomon: 1 Kgs 1:15; Jeroboam: 1 Kgs 14:17; Baasha: 1 Kgs 16:2; Hezekiah: 2 Kgs 20:5; also see Ezek 28:2 regarding the king of Tyre.
[13] Some priests are referred to as nagiyd but only with regarding their status as head of their household or as overseer over the ministers of Temple, not regarding the priesthood (e.g. 1 Chron 9:20; 12:27; Jer 20:1).
[14] e.g. “… confessing my sin (chatta’ah) and the sin (chatta’ah) of my people Israel …” (Dan 9:20)
[15] E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 199.
[16] C. Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (London: SPCK, 1923; repr. 1977), 188.
[17] Young The Prophecy of Daniel, 200.
[18] cf. “none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand” (Dan 12:10).
[19] “Nevertheless no devoted offering that a man may devote to the Lord of all that he has, both man and beast, or the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted offering is most holy to the Lord” (Lev 27:28).
[20] Young The Prophecy of Daniel, 207.
[21] N. W. Porteous Daniel (London: SCM Press, 1965), 142.
[22] See Montgomery, Daniel, 381. Porteous’ selection of “without trial” in place of “without condemnation” seems arbitrary, though it is possibly suggested to favour an identification with Onias who was murdered, not executed.
[23] A. Laato, “The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel” ZAW 102/2 (1990): 212-22, proposes that vv 24-26 are the original core to which v27 has been appended, perhaps replacing the original ending, during the Maccabean period in order to reinterpret the original prophecy (Laato, “The Seventy Year-weeks”, (221).
[24] J. G. Baldwin, (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1978), 171.
[25] cf. ~wr ruwm “taken away” (Dan 8:11); rws cuwr “taken away” (Dan 12:11);
[26] For instance, it has been suggested that “wing” refers to the eagle-standards of the Roman legions (H. P. Mansfield & G. E. Mansfield, The Book of Daniel: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition (Findon: Logos Publications, 1992), 260-1).
[27] See Montgomery, Daniel, 387; cf. Mark 13:14.
[28] W. H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27”, in F. D. Holbrook (ed.), The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (Washington: Review and Herald, 1986), 97.
[29] P. J. Ray Jr., “The Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27 and Related Tests: Theology of Retributive Judgment”, in D. Merling (ed.), To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1997), 205-213.
[30] Both LXX and θ’ give “abomination of desolations” in 9:27; also see Montgomery, Daniel, 388.
Jacob’s Prophecy in Gen 49 and Other Discussion Questions