Posted on 05/13/2002 7:11:13 PM PDT by 1 spark
VATICAN CITY, Jan. 17 — The Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, "The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain."
The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second.
"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from "Dominus Iesus," a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.
The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as "retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value," said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. "You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' "
"The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," he went on, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."
Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro- Valls said no. "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew," he said.
The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.
Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said.
The Rev. Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit scholar who worked on the commission, said the project sees Scripture as a link between Christians and Jews, and the New Testament as a continuation of the Old, though divergent in obvious ways.
A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.
"This is something altogether new, especially compared with the earlier document from Ratzinger that was so controversial," said Rabbi Alberto Piattelli, a professor and leader of the Jewish community in Rome.
"This latest declaration is a step forward" in closing the wounds opened by that earlier document, Rabbi Piattelli said. "It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised."
Prof. Michael R. Marrus, dean of graduate studies at the University of Toronto, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, was also complimentary. Professor Marrus was among the Jewish members of a panel studying the Vatican's role in the Holocaust, but the group was disbanded after disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.
"This is important," he said, "and all the more so because it comes from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is not considered the most liberal spokesman for the church. It represents real and remarkable progress on the Catholic-Jewish front," even as the dispute over the Catholic Church's wartime history seems to be hardening, he added.
At least initially, the only voices of dissent were on the Catholic side, where some traditionalists said they felt the church under Pope John Paul II had done altogether too much apologizing already.
Vittorio Messori, a Catholic writer and commentator, said he respects the pope but "his apologies leave me perplexed."
"He's inspired and has his reasons," Mr. Messori said, "but what's dangerous in these apologies is that he seems to say the church itself has been wrong in its teaching," rather than just some within the church.
The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.
Tullia Zevi, a longtime Jewish community leader and commentator here, said: "The widespread opinion on the document is that it's trying to question the validity of past attitudes of the church, and seems an attempt to move us closer to together. So why was such an important document kept secret?"
One possibility, she said, was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks.
Vatican officials, however, say it was not announced because it was seen mainly as a theological study intended for other theologians.
The Vatican is governed by tradition and habit, and is thus quite able to keep silent about even important new policies. In December, for example, word emerged without fanfare of new rules on the treatment of priests accused of pedophilia.
Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, a left- leaning Catholic group with a history of mediating international conflicts and promoting religious dialogue, said he was most impressed by the depth of the new document.
"This should be reassuring" to Jews, he said, "especially because these last years have not been easy."
He said the document in no way backtracks from "Dominus Iesus" ("The Lord Jesus"), but does represent a significant shift.
"In the past, we've talked about an ancient, common heritage," he said. "But now, for the first time, we're talking about our future waiting for the Messiah and the end of time."
Waiting together?
"No," Mr. Riccardi said. "But waiting close to each other."
Those who convert are considered fully Jewish in every way. It is true that, genetically, they are not descendants of Abraham (although who really knows, today, between the 10 lost tribes and those who left Judaism for various reasons over the centuries). In any case, assuming the convert marries someone who is born Jewish, their offspring would be of Abraham's bloodline. A useful metaphor for Judaism is an extended family. You can either be born into it, or "marry" into it.
BTW -- More than likely Matthew 26:7-12. Kings were anointed on their heads, but Jesus said that she had done this "to prepare me for my burial". He was headed for death [Daniel 9:26 -- Messiah shall be cut off] .
That's a good way of putting it, yes. The estimates I've read is that they presently number about 30,000 worldwide. So it is a pretty small movement, although they do have a presence in Israel, and a center in San Francisco. I am not an orthodox Jew, and I do find some of their critiques of certain rabbinic teachings intriguing. But I don't agree with them on everything.
Unless I am misunderstanding it, in the Karaite calendar, there would be aas many as 11 days per year between the end of Adar and beginning of Abib that would never be counted or have a date assigned to them. Hopefully during that time nothing dateworthy ever happened.
I believe you are right. History did move at a slower pace back then!
Also didn't the Pharisees practice a ritual of the washing of the fingers, which is also a part of the Catholic Mass?
I think the metaphor he uses is the branch grafted in. To say that they are the "real seed" to the exclusion of the Jews is supercessionism. Abraham's seed is still Abraham's seed. The supercessionist position completely spiritualizes the meaning of "seed", to the point of denying the literal meaning.
In trying to prove that Christ can't fulfill the prophecy because he has no biological descendants, you have to start by assuming that he is not the Messiah, i.e., you must assume what you are trying to prove.
Likewise, you could assume that he is the messiah, and then mine the Hebrew scriptures for any evidence that might support it (thus assuming what you are trying to prove). You have to make either one assumption or the other. For the Christian trying to witness to the Jew, he would need to start from the standpoint of where the Jew is: the belief that Jesus is not the messiah. If he already accepted this, he wouldn't be a nonbeliever.
There is a parallel, but I am unsure how exact it is. Many orthodox Jews believe that the Oral Law was handed down complete at the time of Sinai, and only written down later when it was in danger of becoming lost due to the distruptions in the Jewish communities. The Catholic position, contrarily, is that Tradition was present from the beginning, but in a nascent form, and was "unfolded" over time by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
My personal take on the Oral Torah is that some of it probably did date back to the time of Moses, but that it also developed over time. Where it truly functions as an interpretation of the written text, I believe it serves a purpose. The scriptural basis for this function is found in Deuteronomy:
If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God will choose,
and coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place which the LORD will choose; and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you;
according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:8-11)
Jesus himself seems to have acknowledged this legitimate interpretive authority, even as he castigated the scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy.
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Matthew 23:2-3)
The problem I have with the oral law is when it strays too far from the text of scripture and becomes more legislative than interpretive. An example of this is the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk. This has been interpreted to mean that meat and milk products should never be eaten in the same meal. Now, this clearly goes beyond the literal meaning of the text. The principle involved is called "building a fence around the Torah". It functions by restricting things that have the potential to cause a violation of the Law to occur. Coming from a Catholic background, you might recognize this principle as "avoiding the near occasion of sin". Jesus himself used this principle in the sermon on the mount when he taught that anger and lust were the equivalent of murder and adultery.
Now I have nothing against this principle in principle ;o), but the question becomes how far out do you put the fences. It is reasonable to avoid things that might cause you to sin, but this doesn't mean that you should never leave the house! I guess this is why that, although I try to be a Torah-observant Jew, I will likely never be an orthodox one.
Also didn't the Pharisees practice a ritual of the washing of the fingers, which is also a part of the Catholic Mass?
There are, unsurprisingly, many practices that passed from Judaism into the early Christian communities. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians have preserved more of these practices than have others. Ritual hand washing is a daily practice in orthodox Judaism. The blessing and partaking of bread and wine is a traditional part of the Friday evening sabbath meal. Even the words of blessing are very similar to the Catholic eucharistic rite.
From the Catholic Novus Ordo mass, preparation of the altar and gifts:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
Now compare this to the blessing of the bread and wine which I make every Friday night at my dining room table:
Barukh atah Adonai Elohaynu melekh ha-olam, borei p’riy ha-gafen.
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.
Barukh atah Adonai Elohaynu melekh ha-olam ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz.
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.
The Catholic blessing is more elaborate, but its origin is clear. Even after the changes it has undergone over the past 2000 years, the Catholic mass still preserves traces of the Jewish worship service from which it derived.
In 48 years, I show 18 leap years of 384 days and 30 years of 354 days totalling 17,532 days, which is precisely 48 years of 365.25 days.
This means that the Coincidence and the Reconcilation occur at the same time on the same day every 48 years -- which would be the start of the Year of Jubilee. That is quite enlightening --
Do the Karaites consider this to be a Jubilee Year?
I don't know. I looked through their web site and did a google search, and wasn't able to turn up anything.
The scripture links default to the NIV at BibleGateway.com, where you may readily click on other translations as you may desire. The explanation here does not pivot or rely upon any one translation. I've referenced the Blue Letter bible and the JPS bible when the original Hebrew was a consideration.
Historical synopsis: (complete timeline at: A Chronology of Scripture and additional timelines at: Achaemenids; Persian Kings; Postexilic Chronology; Babylonian & Persian King Chronology)
"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench [or moat, also wall], but in times of trouble.
a) What is the decree?
to rebuild and restore Jerusalem
b) When was decree issued?
not 538 BC (Cyrus 1st year decrees to Sheshbazzar rebuild temple)
"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Ezra 1:2
not 444 BC (Artaxerxes 20th full regnal year, decree to Nehemiah to rebuild the wall)
I also said to him, "If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah? And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king's forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?" And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests. Neh 2:7-8
but 458 BC (Artaxerxes 7th full regnal year, decree to Ezra to return to Jerusalem with volunteers)
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king. He had begun his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, for the gracious hand of his God was on him. Ezra 7:8-9
Artaxerxes, king of kings,
To Ezra the priest, a teacher of the Law of the God of heaven:
Greetings.
Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who wish to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. [...snip...] You and your brother Jews may then do whatever seems best with the rest of the silver and gold, in accordance with the will of your God. [...snip...] And you, Ezra, in accordance with the wisdom of your God, which you possess, appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates-all who know the laws of your God. And you are to teach any who do not know them. Ezra 7:12-25465 BC is Artaxerxes accession (partial) year, so 464 is 1st full regnal year, 464-6 = 458 BC is 7th full regnal year
or visually:
..._a_ _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_ _7_
...465 464 463 462 461 460 459 458 457 456...c) How long is 69 sevens?
prophetic weeks are seven's (heptads) of years, so 7 weeks + 62 weeks X 7 years/week = 483 years
No adjustments for 'biblical' years to Julian solar years is needed because the Jews already adjusted for them, adding a leap month seven times every 19 years on year 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 19. So essentially every 3 years the Jewish calendar synchronizes with the 365.25 day solar year. Further, the only circumstance in which this has significant impact is intervals of less than 3 years. So over a period of 483 years, the Jews would have added about 177 leap months to stay synchronized with the Solar year and, worst case, at the end of 483 years, a date might be a month off. Jewish Calendar
Add 1 year for transition from BC to AD, because there is no year number 0, but the math assumes there is.
So, computing: -458 BC + 483 years + 1 = 26 AD (keep in mind we're essentially subtracting a duration of years that cross 0 BC/AD from a date to compute another date, and so we add a year to the date answer to correct for the absence of year 0)
d) Which "Anointed One" came?
Jesus Christ was baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit in 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (12 AD + 14 = 26 AD)
and when Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea (AD 26 was Pilate's 1st year); Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene; Luke 3:1 and "when Jesus himself was about thirty years old." Luke 3:23.or visually:
..._1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 _8 _9 10 11 12 13 14 15
...12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30So then, computing Jesus age and year of baptism we have 26 AD - -6 BC - 1 = 31 (this is different now, we are subtracting two dates on either side of 0 BC/AD to compute the duration of years between them, so now we subtract 1 year from the duration answer to correct for the absence of year 0). But Jesus would have been 31 on Dec 25th of 26 AD. He was baptized earlier in the year, hence when he was 'about 30'.
While Tiberius acceded to Ceasar in 14 AD, Augustus had been dying (without heirs) and by 12 AD had made Tiberius co-regent, successor, and also in 12 AD, Augustus made Tiberius the Supreme Military Commander over all of Roman provinces (i.e. Tiberius became the Roman military authority in Judea in 12 AD). Tiberius thus had provincial and military authority over Judea since 12 AD, and Luke (and contemporaries) having lived under Tiberius for 15 years at that point would reasonably reckon Tiberius reign from when his succession was announced and they first felt his imposition acting as Ceasar and Supreme Military Commander, rather than when Augustus died or new coins were minted. Commentary on Luke 3.
Jesus' baptism (water & spirit) was his 'Anointing', and this was in 26 AD (prior to his 31st birthday on Dec 25th). Assuming Daniel's 69 prophetic weeks are approximate to the month, and that Ezra received the decree from Artaxerxes I just prior to Ezra beginning the journey to Jerusalem in the 1st month of Artaxerxes 7th year (Ezra 7:7-9), and further assuming that for the purposes of recording non-Jewish events that the civil calendar was used (and not the sacred calendar), then the decree would seem to have been issued around August-September of Artaxerxes 7th year. Assuming the anointing (baptism) of Jesus Christ was therefore also in August-September of 26 AD (just prior to the early rains), then a 3 1/2 year ministry (as has been generally recognized) would put Jesus' crucifixion into February-March of 30 AD, a year in which Passover fell on Friday. See Remsberg, Chap 6 and scroll to item 392 (even the atheists get some stuff right).
Jesus is the " `adh-mâshiyach nâghiydh " Dan 9:25 Tanach w/vowels, the Anointed Prince; the baptized, begotten son of God, who came into his Anointing in AD 26, at about the age of 30, 483 years (69 prophetic weeks) from Artaxerxes I decree to Ezra to 'return and see to Jerusalem' (all as prophesied in Daniel 9:25), and was crucified on a Friday Passover in 30 AD at about the age of 33.
e) Was Jerusalem rebuilt with streets and a trench/moat/wall, in times of trouble?
Clearly it was (and clearly with a wall, not a moat). In part by Jews who came with Sheshbazzar or Zerubbabel under Cyrus decree to rebuild the Temple. They weren't staying in Motel-6 and must have done some rebuilding of some city facilities, but did so without Cyrus' specific decree to rebuild Jerusalem. They were even accused of rebuilding the city in violation of Cyrus' decree, which accusation was later dismissed by Darius I who reaffirmed Cyrus' decree to rebuild the Temple (Ezra 6:1-12) . Ultimately Jerusalem proper was rebuilt by Ezra's return and his volunteers under the decree from Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:11-14), and then the wall rebuilt by Nehemiah under a subsequent decree from Artaxerxes I to specifically rebuild 'the wall' (Neh 2:7-9), also against opposition (Neh 4).
f) Was the Anointed One cutoff, and have nothing (Dan 9:26)?
After Jesus Anointing in AD 26, some 3 1/2 years later he was crucified (cut off), with no successor lineage, and had nothing upon his death, (save the sins of us all), not even the clothes from his back, which Roman soldiers had taken.
25:11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
29:10 This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
a) Was Israel 70 years in servitude under, and released by, the King of Babylon?
Nebuchadnezzar (King of Babylon) sacked Jerusalem and deported the population in 586 BC. 70 years later in 516 BC the Zerubbabel Temple was completed and dedicated under Darius I (King of Babylon). While history records little until Artaxerxes I, by then under Ezra and Nehemiah and thereafter Jews were returning to Jerusalem and Judea.
b) God used Cyrus to specifically fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy, not Isaiah's.
In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: " 'The Lord , the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you-may the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.' "
In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: " 'The Lord , the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you-may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord , the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem.
Isaiah 44:28
But God also fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy, as well as Jeremiah's.
Isaiah's prophecy clearly states that Jerusalem and the Temple will be rebuilt, and that Cyrus is God's Shepherd in such rebuilding.
However, Isa 44:28 does not clearly and unequivocally state that Cyrus will issue decrees to rebuild both the Temple and Jerusalem. To so interpret Isa 44:28 requires a special pleading to punctuation that is nonexistent, as well as heavy reliance on the tense of the verb 'amar (Strongs 0559). Interpreters often insert punctuation based on assumptions about what the text is to construe. For Isa 44:28 this is both problematic and needless. Here is Isa 44:28 from the Tanach and as translated by KJV, Young, and JPS 1917. Note the verbs for 'say' or 'saying' are in bold; they differ only in tense, and as the Tanach shows, there was no original punctuation.
HAMR LKVRS ROY VKL-XPCY YSLm VLAMR LYRVSLm TBNH VHYKL TV$D. Isa 44:28 (Tanach w/o vowels)
'amar Kowresh ra`ah shalam chephets 'amar Y@ruwshalaim banah heykal yacad Isa 44:28 (KJV - Blue Letter Conc)
That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid.' Isa 44:28 (JPS 1917)
Who is saying of Cyrus, My shepherd, And all my delight He doth perfect, So as to say of Jerusalem, Thou art built, And of the temple, Thou art founded. Isa 44:28 (YLT)
So, merely because the tense of 'say' changes, the translation varies. However, without punctuation, while reasonable to construe that Cyrus will decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, it is just as reasonable to construe otherwise, that God decrees Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt as well as decreeing Cyrus to be his future shepherd, or that God decrees that Cyrus will cause Jerusalem and the temple to be rebuilt. Which is in fact what happened. God in Isaiah 44:28 chose Cyrus and specifically moved Cyrus to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecies. Cyrus clearly decreed the rebuilding of the Temple (2Chron 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3) but just as clearly did not decree to rebuild Jerusalem, though Cyrus allowed Jews to go to Jerusalem to live while rebuilding the Temple.
It is not necessary for Isaiah 44:28 to be fulfilled through a specific decree from Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem, and God's unequivocal words in 2Chron 36 and Ezra 1, indicate that Cyrus fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecy. Isaiah 44:28 was fulfilled when God moved Cyrus to rebuild the Temple and allow Jews to return to Jerusalem to do it.
But the decree to rebuild Jerusalem came from Artaxerxes I to Ezra in Ezra 7:11-14, as previously discussed, this was to fulfill Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks to the Anointed Prince.
But Angelo would have us believe that Isaiah 44:28 alone dictates what Cyrus will decree and further, that Cyrus himself is the Anointed Prince, and that the Anointed one who is cutoff is some obscure high priest who isn't even mentioned anywhere in Scripture:
Well, I'm sure Angelo will think of something to fix this. But Angelo's interpretation further puzzles me in that Daniel, heeding Jeremiah's prophecy of Jews in servitude for 70 years would ardently pray and intercede on behalf of his people, and God who esteemed Daniel highly, sent Gabriel (God's No 2 Angel) to answer Daniel's prayer for deliverance of the chosen people and give him God's vision that the Jews would be delivered. But instead of one Anointed Prince, a Jewish Deliverer, Angleo's representation of Jewish scholarly thought is that God's vision was for a pagan Persian King and an apostate "unjust, tyrannical, and bloody" High Priest who didn't even make it into scripture. And that, only through tortured reasoning and sloppy math. This 'answer' just doesn't seem to reconcile with what Daniel was praying for and Gabriel delivered from God. I believe God is much bigger than this.Substituting Angelo's three interpretations of Dan 9:25, that he argues here Post #125, here Post #134, and here Post #146, produces:
Dan 9:25 (JPS 1917) Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the
word[Cyrus decree in587538 BC] to restore and to buildJerusalemthe Temple untoone anointed, a prince[Cyrus decrees the rebuilding of Jerusalem], shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.And substituting Angleo's interpretation of Dan 9:26, here Post #110, produces:
Dan 9:26 (JPS 1917) And after the threescore and two weeks shall
an anointed one[the high priest Alexander Yannai, who was punished for his transgressions] be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.And summarizing Angelo's interpretation of Dan 9:25,26, produces:
Know therefore and discern, that from Cyrus decree in 538 BC to restore and to build the Temple until Cyrus decrees the rebuilding of Jerusalem, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.
And after the threescore and two weeks shall the high priest Alexander Yannai (who was punished for his transgressions) be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.So comparing Angelo's interpretation against recorded history and scripture we see:
- Cyrus issued a decree in 538 BC to rebuild the Temple
- 49 years later in 489 BC should be Cyrus' decree to rebuild Jerusalem, except, unfortunately, Cyrus is dead, having been killed in battle in 530 BC.
- But (assuming Angelo can work out the details of Cryus' death) adding 62 weeks of years to 489 BC yields 55 BC supposedly at which time Alexander Yannai was cutoff.
- Except that according to JewsForJudaism #120, Alexander Yannai (Hasmonean King 103-76 BC) didn't live long enough either (though fortunately he had his own ancient coin, or we might never have known, seeing as how God didn't see fit to include Yannai anywhere in scripture). Well, unless of course, we go back to 586 BC when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem (but without issuing any decree), and advance the entire '69 weeks' to 103 BC, but then Yannai wasn't cutoff...he was just getting started.
But this is not the first. Others have struggled to find an interpretation that points anywhere but at Jesus Christ:
Other scholars see two "messiahs" in the prophecy and make Cyrus the Great the first "anointed one." They point out that at the time of Jerusalem's complete desolation (587 BC), God assured Jeremiah that the city would be rebuilt (Jer. 29:10). From this authoritative word until Cyrus in 538 BC was indeed 49 years or 7 "weeks." But to make this interpretation work, they must rearrange the Hebrew word order and translate Daniel 9:25-26 as follows:
Know therefore and understand: From the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [God's word expressed in Jeremiah 29:10 in 587 BC] until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be 7 weeks; and for 62 weeks it shall be built with streets and moat, but in troubled times. And after the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing.
Most of these scholars view the second "anointed one" as Onias, the legitimate high priest who was murdered in 171 BC without a successor. But the second cluster of 62 weeks from 538 BC to 171 BC is 367 years, not the 434 years Daniel predicted. Moreover, as noted earlier, the translation given by these scholars is possible only if one alters the word order of the Hebrew text and makes a few changes dictated by opinion, not by the rules of grammar. One should explore all the possibilities of coming up with a workable interpretation of a text as it stands before altering or modifying it.
See The Prophecy of Daniel 9 for additional information. I do believe however I have provided a much more deterministic and accurate explanation of the 69 weeks above.
Further, Daniel 9 is Messianic Prophecy and the ancient Jewish sages agree:
Moses Maimonides in his "Guide of the Perplexed" (translated by Schlomo Pines, Hebrew University) writing in the 12th century says of Daniel 9:
"As for what Daniel says: Even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, approached close to me about the time of the evening offering - all this happened in a vision of prophecy. It should by no means occur to your thought that an angel can be seen or that the speech of an angel can be heard except in a vision of prophecy or in a dream of prophecy, according to what is stated as a principle: I do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. [Num 2:6]" (italics his). Vol II p390.
Nachmanides in his "Commentary on the Torah" (translated by Rabbi Dr. Chavel) writing after Maimonides later in the 12th century also says of Daniel 9:
Both sages clearly accepted the portrayal of future events regarding a Jewish Deliverer discussed in Dan 9. That they draw a distinction between a 'prophet of God' and a 'writer with a angelic vision from God' doesn't diminish the messianic aspect of Daniel 9 whatsoever."His [Daniel's] book likewise, was not grouped together with the books of the prophets since his affair was with the angel Gabriel, even though he appeared to him and spoke with him when he was awake, as it is said in the vision concerning the second temple: Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, etc. [Dan 9:1]. The vision concerning the ultimate redemption also occurred when Daniel was awake as he walked with his friends beside the Tigris River" [Dan 10:4] (italics his).
In the footnotes, Rabbi Chavel reconciles the views of Nachmanides and Maimonides as while angels may deliver prophetic information in a waking vision, it doesn't make the receiver a prophet. (Vol Genesis pp 228, 229)
Further, Dr. Mark Eastman, writing for the Messianic Times made the following additional points about Jewish sages:
Daniel’s Prophecy Came True When Yeshua Entered Jerusalem"
One of the most ancient rabbinical commentaries is the Talmudim. In the Babylonian Talmud, compiled between 200-500 CE, ancient rabbis wrote extensively on the time of Messiah’s coming, as well as Daniel’s 70-weeks’ prophecy.
Rabbi Judah, the main compiler of the Talmud said regarding the times referred to in Daniel’s prophecy, "These times were over long ago." (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin.)
In the 12th Century AD, Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides), one of the most respected rabbis in history, and a man who rejected the messianic claim of Yeshua, made a remarkable statement that many scholars believe is a reference to Daniel’s 70-weeks’ prophecy.
"Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah." (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p 24.)
Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi said, "I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel."
Without ignoring passages or resorting to punctuation, rearranging scripture, obscure extra-biblical apostates, or adjusting lunar months and sacred years, a plain reading of Dan 9:24, 25 shows that from Artaxerxes I decree to Ezra to take all the volunteers he wanted and return with them to inquire of Judah and Jerusalem, and giving Ezra authority over the region and substantial funds, wasn't just a fact finding trip - it was to restore Jerusalem. From which event, simple addition of 69 weeks of years yields the baptism of Jesus Christ, consistent with his age, length of ministry, and crucifixion on the only Passover Friday within 6 years.
Daniel 9:24, 25 is Messianic Prophecy (foretelling of The Anointed One, if you insist), in which the first 69 weeks were fulfilled with the baptism (Anointing) and subsequent cutting off of Jesus Christ, all consistent with scripture and history. But then God's truth would be.
(whew! I think that all fit)
If Jesus comes again, and he was a God the first time, does this not make four incarnations, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and now Grandson?.
By the way, how exactly do we know that Jesus was a God? Don't the human interpreters have to be divine themselves to divine that Jesus was divine? The problem is doubly difficult since the Gospels were written well after the death of Jesus, in the case of the older Gospels, almost 100 years after the death.
The Muslims have the same problem, the Korun was written some 200 years after the death of Mohhaned. Well, whatever, one has to be polytheist to be a Christian. Unfortunately, the Jews and Muslims have a monopoly on monotheism.
Let me propose another monotheism, Mother Nature. This theory says that all of nature is the God, and the laws of Mother Nature are to be discovered by man.
Here is what I would do to fine tune your time line:
1] Look at Jeremiah's prophecies of seventy years. One relates to Babylon's rule over the nations which would be seventy years. Nebuchadnezzar's conquests of Palestine date from 606BC and it wasn't until 536BC that Cyrus actually finished his conquests and came to Babylon. 536 was the date of the completion of Jeremiah 25:11. That may have been the year that he isssued his decree, marking the fulfllment date of Jeremiah's prophecy.
2] Nebuchadnezzar became sole ruler in 604BC when his father died and sacked Jerusalem in 604, 597, and demolished it in 586BC in the 18th year of his reign. This brings us to the other seventy years of Jeremiah 29:10 which I believe must be measured from 586BC when Jerusalem was destroyed not initially conquered.. This other seventy years was 586BC to 516 BC.
3] The Darius of Daniel 5 is not the Darius of Daniel 9. Note how Daniel describes them dfferently. The first is described by Daniel as 62 years old. Historians believe him to be Gobaru who was either the father in law or chief commander of Cyrus who captured Babylon and ruled it for two years until his death two years later or when Cyrus actually took command of the city and incorporated it into his realm.
4] Daniel is praying therefore in Chapter 9 during the reign of Darius I [522 to 585 BC]. If this were the first Darius, then he would have been over a hundred years old when he died, but Daniel is careful to differentiate him from the first by writing that he is "son of Ahasueras", who could have been "Cambyses" or a cousin.
Anyway Daniel is praying here in Chapter 9 because he sees the seventy years expiring and Jerusalem is still a desolation and Jews are still in Babylon, and 14 years have passed since Cyrus's decree and Smerdis has decreed that all building in Jerusalem be stopped. So Daniel is deeply concerned with only 6 years to go to complete Jeremiah's seventy years. He is concerned for God's word.
This means that Gabriel's message had to come after the decree of Cyrus which was probably 536 BC [not 538 BC] when Cyrus entered Babylon and took control from Darius the Mede. So the "command" to restore and build Jerusalem to which Gabriel refers is still future -- not past.
Furthermore, I may be wrong, but it seems that Hebrew word for "command" [as in Daniel 9:23, 25] is "dabar" and is usually used to refer to something "officially written down" as in a book, letter, decree, or in stone as the Ten Conmmandments were. Isaiah in 44:28 uses the word "amar" which is a less official word translated "saying" as differentiated from "command". The "command" of Artaxerxes to Ezra certainly fulfill this and is broad enough to cover both the temple and the city..
Thanks for pointing this out --
1]How firm are those dates of Artaxerxes' reign. We know from history that the Julian calendar was off by four years. Does this move the start of the reign of Artaxerxes from 465 BC to 461 and then place the command to Ezra at 454 and the one to Nehemiah 441 BC or are these dates already adjusted?.
2]Does the birth of Jesus in 6BC when adjusted for the four year Julian calendar mistake move his birth to from 6 BC to 2BC? If so then his ministry began in about 27 AD and died at about 30 AD. For the numbers to work out , the order to Ezra would have had to been given in 454 BC [454 -1 + 30 = 483] or am I mistaken here?
3]BTW I think both commands to Ezra and Nehemiah are prophetically significant, the one being thirteen years after the other. What happened thirteen years after the death of Jesus? Was that the conversion of Cornelius or could it have been the conversion of Paul -- when the "anointing" was "cut off" from the Jews and began to fall upon the Gentiles. Or was it the Council of Jerusalem that took place thirteen years after the Messiah was cut off.?
Depending upon which date one uses to mark the start of the 483 years, what happened thirteen years after the Crucifixion/Resurrection could be very propheticlly significant. It could be that 483 years after Artaxerxes command to Ezra the Messiah was cut off [30-31 AD, and 483 years after Artaxerxes command to Nehemiah, the "anointing" or Gospel was cut off from Israel and passed onto the Gentiles. Wasn't the Council of Jerusalem approximately 43-44 AD, thirteen years after the Cruciifixion?
We know from history that the Julian calendar was off by four years. Could you elaborate on what error you mean? That the Romans didn't correctly apply the leap years, or that a 4-year error accumulated over time, or that a leap year is inserted every 4 years, other?...a link to anything is always helpful.
If we are using 6BC then 458BC for the command would put the death of Jesus at what? 26AD? [458 -1+26 =483]
Or If we are using 2BC then 454BC would be the command. [454-1+30=483] with the death of Jesus at 30 AD.
The question is which date is written in stone and what did the Gregorian Calendar correct? I don't have any links but I will look for some. I have been looking for some way to tie down those decree dates for awhile, but I am not sure that it is possible.
in the meantime, here's a pretty good calendar link
Anyway, see my post to you in the thread you started,"What Makes the Jewish Religion".
If Elizabeth conceived in the 1st week of the 4th Jewish month [after the course of Abijah which is the 12th week of the year] , then Mary conceived during the sixth month later or 1st week of the ninth month to the third week of the tenth month, which is between our Thnksgiving and Christmas.
Nine months later is last week of sixth month to third week of seventh month. This period covers Rosh Hashanna through the end of the Feast of Taberncles, as long as it wasn't a leap year. Birth on Rosh Hshanna [the first] seems most appropriate, with presentation in the Temple nine days later on or just before the Day of Atonement, and yet birth on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles [the fifteenth] is also quite prophetic and appropriate. Both are possible from the timeline of Scriptures.
According to some historians in your links Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus who began reigning in 43BC [pointing to a 2BC birthdate], and yet others say 28 years after his victory over Cleopatra which occurred in 31 BC [pointing to a 3 BC birthdate].
While some say that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, Missler produced documentation saying that he actually died in 1 BC. That means a 3 BC or 2 BC date is acceptable.
The astrological chart showing that the Sun was in Virgo moon under the feet on Sept 11, Rosh Hashannah of 3 BC seems to be a clincher, if in fact that is true.
Since Jesus was not quite six months older than John the Baptist, and they both had to be thirty years old to start their ministries, and since John the Baptist had to have time to start his before baptising Jesus, Jesus may have started his ministry just before his 31st birthday, allowing John a full year and a half into his own.
If we have a 3 BC birthdate on Rosh Hashannah, then Rosh Hashannah of 26 AD is Jesus' 30th birthday. Let's say that being in no hurry, he waits a year to allow John to establish his ministry. Then begins just before Rosh Hoshannah of 27 AD, 15 years after Tiberius began to reign in 12 AD. Three and a half years later is Passover of 31 AD, which is often accepted as the date of the Crucifixion. But 31 AD doesn't work well for the 483 years from either of Artaxerxes' decrees.
But there is a third possibility -- that the decree to build and restore Jerusalem was issued sometime between the two decrees of 445 BC and 458 BC, at a median date of 453 BC. Since the first decree authorized Ezra to do as seemed right, giving him wide latitude, perhaps it was Ezra himself who after establishing the Temple, and checking the finances, actually authorized the building of Jerusalem. This might make more sense since Artaxerxes' first decree [458BC] would permit Ezra to legally make such a decision, and his second decree [445 BC] to Nehemiah almost assumes that the work of rebuilding Jerusalem had already begun, and Nehemiah wanted to return to build his own house.
Somewhere in history there could be and probably is a decree from Ezra or the elders or the Jewish governor of Judea around 453BC authorizing the building of Jerusalem with the funds left over from Artaxerxes' 458 BC decree.
That 453 BC decree is what we need to look for and I'll bet can be found somewhere. This would give us the following numbers for the fulfillment of Daniel 9: 24-27: 453 -1 + 31 = 483
Godspeed WK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.