home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Gerald Sigal: Danial 9

return to previous page

• from Gerald Sigal's The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Chrisitanity

Seventy weeks are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troubled times. And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off, and he shall have nothing; 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 to the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causes appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causes appalment. (Daniel 9:24-27)

The King James Version of the Bible renders Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression; and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Our objections to various Christian missionary interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 are based on the missionaries subscribing in whole or in part to the following incorrect suppositions (the King James Version of the Bible will be used as the main example since it contains the grossest errors, which are, in whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible):

1. The King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince" (9:25).

a. The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach ("anointed one," "messiah"), a prince," i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).

b. The word mashiach is nowhere used in Scripture as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or high priest.

c. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."

2. The King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation:

a. The punctuation mark 'atnah functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnah is the approximate equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again. . ." (9:25).

 

b. By creating a sixty-nine week period which is not divided into two separate periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christian missionaries reach an incorrect conclusion, i. e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

3. The King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: "And after the threescore and two weeks. . ." By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnah.

• Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks, and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks.

4. The words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as "but not for himself. " It should be translated as "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing."

• How can Christian missionaries apply this verse and Isaiah 53:12, where God's servant receives "a portion with the great," to Jesus?

Moreover, v'ayn lo cannot refer to Jesus' situation at or after death, for, unlike mere mortal bodies which decay after death, Christian missionaries claim that Jesus rose bodily into heaven, where he sits at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty." It certainly could not refer to a lack of wealth or followers, for this would not distinguish Jesus from the great majority of the world's population. One who "has nothing" (Daniel 9:26) does not receive "a portion with the great" (Isaiah 53:12), does not rise bodily to heaven (Acts 1:9), and does not sit at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty" (Hebrews 8:1). It is precisely with his death that Jesus was allegedly able to attain his rewards. Therefore, "he shall have nothing" cannot refer to the Jesus of Christian missionary theology.

5. After covering sixty-nine consecutive weeks, most Christian missionary apologists are compelled to separate the seventieth week from the rest of the time period. This last week is relegated to some future period of time, with no agreement among the Christian missionary exegetes on how to explain this last week as a direct continuance of the preceding sixty-nine weeks. They are in effect turning the ninth chapter of Daniel into a "prophecy of sixty-nine weeks."

6. Daniel asks divine guidance in determining the meaning of God's words to Jeremiah concerning the end of desolation and the restoration of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2). He is obviously referring to Jeremiah 25:21-12, 29:20, 30:18, and 31:37-39, where the promise of restoration appears. Therefore, "the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25) dates from the time when God related His message to Jeremiah. That the reckoning of the seventy years dates from the time of Jeremiah is attested to by the prophet Zechariah (ca. 519 B.c.E.). He relates a vision in which God's message comes to him in the form of a dialogue between God and an angel: "Then the angel of the Lord spoke and said: 'O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have compassion on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You have had indignation these seventy years' " (Zechariah 1:12).

The number is a round one, corresponding to the years during which the Temple, which was to be completed in approximately three more years, lay desolate. In responding to the angel, God declares: ". . . I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, says the Lord of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem" (Zechariah 1:16). Thus, the seventy years of desolation must refer to the period of Temple desolation. Only by manipulating the figures can one arrive at 483 years between the destruction of the Temple (ca. 586 B.C.E), when the seventy-week period began, and Jesus' death (ca. 33 C.E.). In a desperate attempt at reconciling a period of 483 years with its terminus at the death of Jesus, other starting dates are proposed. However, all these interpretations hinge upon the incorrect renderings mentioned above.

7. The claim that the seventy-week period and, therefore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins during the time of Nehemiah (444 B.C.E alternately 455 B.C.E.) is erroneous. Artaxerxes' permission to Nehemiah was not in the form of a proclamation or decree. The letters given Nehemiah were for safe conduct through the various Persian provinces on his way to Judah (Nehemiah 2:7) and a letter of permission to use lumber from the royal forests for the specific building program he wished to carry out (Nehemiah 2:8). Nehemiah never possessed a royal proclamation specifically allowing him to rebuild Jerusalem. What he sought and received from Artaxerxes was permission to make secure the community then living in Jerusalem, not to rebuild a completely desolate city.

Despite Nehemiah's gloomy description of Jerusalem, which he most likely had never visited, but had received reports of from others, there must have been a community living in Jerusalem at least in the form of an open village or town. Certainly it was not as in its former glory but nevertheless inhabited. We must conclude that the actual command to rebuild Jerusalem must be in accordance with the words of Isaiah, who said that this would be done by Cyrus: "He [Cyrus] shall rebuild My city" (see also Ezra 1:1-8, 6:1-5). Indeed, it was Cyrus who issued a proclamation (ca. 537 B.C.E.) for the return, and for the rebuilding to start, forty-nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence, the Scriptures teach that it was during the time of Cyrus that the rebuilding of the city began, symbolized, first of all, by the rebuilding of the Temple, which was completed ca. 516 B.C.E., seventy years after its destruction. It is with the completion of the Temple that the period of desolation officially terminates.

During the time of Nehemiah many of Jerusalem's inhabitants took part in the rebuilding of its walls (Nehemiah 3:1-32). Moreover, indications are given that there were  many houses in Jerusalem at this time. Nehemiah 3:10 says that a man named Jedaiah, the son of Harumaph, repaired
the wall adjoining his house; Azariah, the son of Maaseiah,
the son of Ananiah, repaired the wall beside his own
house (Nehemiah 3:23), and the priests repaired the wall
next to their own houses (Nehemiah 3:28). Zadok, the son
of Immer, repaired the wall next to his own house
(Nehemiah 3:29), as did Meshullam, the son of Berechiah,
next to his chamber (Nehemiah 3:30).

Malchijah repaired the wall as far as the house of the Nethinim. If there

were no houses in Jerusalem before Nehemiah began to rebuild
the wall, these statements could not have been made.
Consequently, what Nehemiah meant when he said that
"the city was wide and large, but the people within it were
few and no houses were built" (Nehemiah 7:4) was that the built-up area was not large and much of the city still lay in ruins. It is inconceivable that Jerusalem before Nehemiah consisted solely of the Temple. What Nehemiah was concerned with was the vulnerability of Jerusalem to attack
because the walls were broken down (Nehemiah 2:3, 5).

He could not mention this openly to Artaxerxes for fear that
the Persian king might accuse him of wishing to fortify the
city in order to lead a revolt against Persia. Clearly, the
restoration of Jerusalem dates back to the decree of Cyrus,
who God said will "rebuild My city." Such being the case,
the seventy-week period cannot be dated back to Artaxerxes, as erroneously claimed by some Christian missionary exegetes.

The translation of the ninth chapter of Daniel as rendered by
the Jehovah's Witnesses includes many of the errors that the
other Christian translations contain. The Witnesses support
much of their understanding of the text by recourse to the
writings of certain Christian theologians. Therefore, a study of
the Jehovah's Witnesses' reasons for translating as they do
affords a cross-section of the Christian theological understanding of this chapter.

 

The following is a critique of the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation as found in their Bible version, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, and as explained in their book, Aid to Bible Understanding.

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses also disregard the 'atnah giving the following reason:

The Masoretic text, with its vowel pointings, was prepared in the latter half of the first millennium C.E. Evidently because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah the Masoretes accented the Hebrew text at Daniel 9:25 with an 'Ath.nahh' or "stop" after "seven weeks," thereby dividing it off from the "sixty-two weeks"; in this way the sixty-two weeks of the prophecy, namely, 434 years, appear to apply to the time of rebuilding ancient Jerusalem.

Answer:

a. There is no proof that the Masoretes corrupted the text. Quite the contrary, the Masoretic text is the result of carefully handed down traditions. Only the written forms of the vowel signs and the accent marks were devised sometime during the seventh or eighth centuries C.E., but the oral tradition which these signs and marks represent goes back millennia.

b. The Witnesses have not only disregarded the punctuation of the Hebrew text but have added their own. The Witnesses, thereby, create a sentence where none is indicated or intended in the original text. They render the crucial words of Daniel 9:25 as: "there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt." No justification for the formation of a new sentence can be given from the Hebrew text.

2. The Witnesses state further:

Professor E. B. Pusey, in a footnote on one of his lectures delivered at the University of Oxford (published 1885), remarks on the Masoretic accenting: "The Jews put the main stop of the verse under [seven], meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly ... as (Rashi [a prominent Jewish Rabbi of the twelfth century C.E.] says in rejecting literal expositions which favored the Christians) 'on account of the heretics,' i.e. Christians. For the latter clause, so divided off, could only mean, 'and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,' i. e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless."

Answer:

a. Because the Masoretic text with 'atnah shows that Jesus was not the Messiah, Professor Pusey accused the Jews of "dishonestly" changing the text. His accusation is based on the assumption that anything which shows that Jesus is not the Messiah must be a dishonest attempt by the Jews.

b. The Masoretic text does not say "that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding" but that it would be built up for this length of time. The verb banah ("to build") is sometimes used for "enlarging," as can be seen, for example, in the phrase: "from the day that they [the Israelites] built it [Jerusalem]" (Jeremiah 32:31). (In 1 Kings 12:25 the verb banah has the meaning of "fortify.") Since Jerusalem existed as a city long before its capture by David from the Jebusites, it is clear that what is meant by Jeremiah is the period when the city was enlarged by David and those who followed him. This, then, is also the meaning of the verb in Daniel. It is a reference to the period when the city was enlarged, as indeed it was during the second commonwealth.

3. The Witnesses state further:

It may be noted, in this connection, that the Septuagint translation, made by Jewish scholars in the first three centuries B.C.E., reads, at verse 25, "from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, . . ." [Bagster] Thomson's Septuagint reads, in part: "seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. They shall indeed return and a street shall be built and a wall, . . ."

Answer:

 

a. Giving two English translations of the Greek Septuagint as proof is of no value, since these translations are influenced by the wording and the punctuation of the King James Version of the Bible. The fact that "Christ" is capitalized in one of the English translations proves its inaccuracy and tendentiousness since in the original Greek Septuagint there were no capitalizations, as all letters were written with capitals. Moreover, the ancient Greek Septuagint text did not have punctuation marks. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses' own Aid to Bible Understanding states, in the article entitled "Manuscripts of the Bible," under the subtitle "Styles of Writing":

"Biblical manuscripts written in Greek (whether translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, or copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or both) can be divided or classified as to writing style, which is also an aid in dating them. The older style (employed especially down to the ninth century c.E.) is the uncial manuscript, written in large, separate capital letters. In it there is generally no word separation, and punctuation and accent marks are lacking."

Since ancient Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc., did not employ punctuation marks, they provide no proof of a divergent Masoretic text.

4. The Witnesses state further:

Most English translations do not follow the Masoretic punctuation here, either having a comma after the expression "seven weeks," or in the wording indicating that the sixty-two weeks follow the seven as part of the seventy, and not denoting that the sixty-two weeks apply to the period of rebuilding Jerusalem. (Compare Daniel 9:25 in AV, AT, Dy, NW, Ro, Yg. ) An editorial note by Professor James Strong in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (The Book of the Prophet Daniel, by Dr. Otto Zockler), page 198, says: "The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of the rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Athnac [stop] between them . . . . and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations.

Answer:

a. Strong is wrong in saying that "the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition." The Masoretic text is perfectly good and proper biblical Hebrew, and no comparison with English usage is of value since every language has its own grammatical and syntactic rules. In fact, whereas in English the preposition "for" is commonly used with time duration, in biblical Hebrew it is grammatically incorrect to include it (e.g., Genesis 5:6, 9, 12, etc., a.fr.). The King James Version usually follows the literal Hebrew and does not include the preposition "for." However, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of the Bible, does add "for" in order to conform with the common English usage.

5. The Witnesses state further:

The translation by Isaac Leeser reads: "Know therefore and comprehend, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed the prince will be seven weeks: [the stop is represented here by a colon] and during sixty and two weeks will it be again built with streets and ditches (around it), even in the pressure of the times." The translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America reads similarly: "shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again." In these two versions the words "during" and "for," respectively, appear in the English translation, evidently to support the translators' interpretation.'

Answer:

a. As is well known, the Hebrew prefix ve- often is not only a conjunction, meaning "and," but serves as an adverb with a variety of meanings, such as "but," "however," "now," "then," "while," "or," "therefore," etc., according to the context, as can be seen from any modern English version of the Bible. Even the Witnesses' own Bible translation, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, recognizes this: i.e., Genesis 7:23, "thus"; 1 Samuel 19:20, "at once"; 1 Samuel 19:21, "when"; 2 Kings 24:4, "so that"; Ezekiel 33:11, "for." Leeser and the Jewish Publication Society amplified the text for greater clarity. But these are additions within the context of the meaning represented by the prefix ve-. The lack of the preposition should not concern us (see answer 4), for we are dealing with Daniel's writing style and not with English grammar. The extreme versatility of the prefix ve- allows for the addition of the preposition "for" in translation.

If we merely use two of the most common translations for the Hebrew prefix ve-, that is, "and" and "then," we have the following: ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and sixty-two weeks it shall be built again" or ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then sixty-two weeks it shall be built again."

 

The idea of two separate time periods, with Jerusalem to be rebuilt during the second time period, is clearly stated in either manner of translation. That the Jewish understanding of verse 25 is correct is corroborated by verse 26, which mentions the latter period of sixty-two weeks only: "And after the sixty-two weeks . . ." In verse 26, the definite article is placed before "sixty-two weeks" in order to emphasize that it is a separate time period. The verification of "the sixty-two weeks" as a separate time period, which we find in verse 26, is the key to the understanding that verse 25 speaks of two separate time periods. But, of course, most Christian Bible translations leave out the all-important definite article from verse 26 or do as the Witnesses do: simply ignore that it has any bearing on the meaning of Daniel's "seventy weeks."

6. The Witnesses state further:

Gabriel further said to Daniel: "After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself." (vs. 26) It was sometime after the end of the "seven plus sixty-two weeks," actually about three and a half years afterward, that Christ was cut off in death on a torture stake, giving up all that he had as a ransom for mankind. (Isa. 53:8) Evidence indicates that the first half of the "week" was spent by Jesus in the ministry."

Answer:

a. The word "after" in verse 26 is taken, by the Witnesses, to be three and one-half years later, spring 33 C.E., and the death of Jesus. Despite the Witnesses' preconceived notions, there is no reason for one not to expect that "sometime after the end of the 'seven plus sixty-two weeks"' means right after the sixty-nine weeks. If what the Witnesses say is correct, Gabriel would have said: "after sixty-nine and one-half weeks."

b. Concerning the Witnesses' contention that Jesus gave up "all that he had as a ransom for mankind," this is not the full story. The Witnesses say that Jesus was an angel before he came to earth. In assuming an earthly body, he knew exactly what God's purpose was for the future of mankind and what was expected of him in order to bring this about. Did Jesus have a free will to sin while on earth? The answer is obviously no, for had he not carried out God's expectations the whole timetable of God's purpose would have been eternally disrupted, and that is an impossibility. Had Jesus sinned he would not receive rewards on earth or in heaven. As a human being, Jesus certainly had very little. Yet because he allegedly stood in a special relationship to God he could expect, on reassuming his angelic state, great honors in heaven. Therefore, what did he give up in dying a human death? In sum, what they are really saying is that Jesus gave up a temporary earthly life for singular eternal honor. Clearly, it is unreasonable to say that this was "giving up all that he had as a ransom for mankind." By exchanging his transitory human life-span for eternal angelic honor, Jesus obviously made a manifold profit. To claim otherwise would be sheer distortion of what is alleged to be theological truth.

7. The Witnesses state further:

God, through Christ, did extend the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to the natural offspring of Abraham, excluding the Gentiles until the gospel was taken to them through Peter's preaching to the Italian Cornelius. (Acts 3:25, 26; 10:1-48) This conversion of Cornelius and his household occurred after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, which is generally considered to have taken place in 34 or 35 C.E.; after this the congregation enjoyed a period of peace, being built up. (Acts 9:1-16, 31) It appears, then, that the bringing of Cornelius into the Christian congregation took place in the autumn of 36 C.E., which would be the end of the seventieth "week," 490 years from 455 B.C.E.

 

Answer:

a. It is necessary for the Witnesses to fit events into their chronology. Therefore, Saul's conversion, which they speculate to have taken place in 34 or 35 C.E., becomes hard fact in Witness chronology. But no substantiated proof is offered to support this conjecture.

b. The Witnesses state: "It appears . . . that the bringing of Cornelius into the Christian congregation took place in the autumn of 36 C.E. This assumption ("it appears") becomes hard fact on which to base other assumptions, although there is absolutely no proof that Cornelius' conversion took place in the autumn of 36 C.E.

 

In sum, we are being offered an orchestration of assumptions to prove a presupposed contention.

c. Even the Witnesses' starting date of 455 B.C.E. is actually based on the process of working backward from the events they wish to prove. It is not Nehemiah, but Cyrus (Isaiah 45:13), who is given credit by God for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Therefore, all the Witnesses' claims and calculations to the contrary are in vain.

 

footnote. Some Christian missionaries claim that there is something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days, thus shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years, which they claim began in 444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the dates coincide, but the claim of a "prophetic year" is without any scriptural foundation.