Talk:Prophecy of Seventy Weeks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Another alternative?[edit]

One view that seems to missing from this article is actually one of the more popular (among non-Fundamentalist scholars, that is). It holds that the 'decree' should actually be dated from Jeremiah's prophecy that the Temple would be rebuilt (see Daniel 9:2, Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah 30:17-18, Jeremiah 31:38). Further, the Hebrew word 'dabar' is generally thought to be mistranslated in the KJV - in fact, it means 'word' as in 'the word of the Lord' (Dan 9:2). This then puts the start of the 70 'weeks' at the second siege, i.e. 587 BC. The first division of seven 'weeks' would then end at 536 BC - almost exactly the same time that Cyrus conquered Babylon and ended the Exile. (Also note that the KJV inserts a definite article before the word 'Messiah'. In fact, the text has no definite article - it should read 'an Anointed One', as in the RSV and NJB. The next division of 62 weeks would take us (approximately) to the time of Antiochus IV. The final 'week' would then refer to the seven years of persecution under Antiochus, from 171 BC (when the last Zadokite High Priest was murdered) to 164 BC (the death of Antiochus). It is also interesting to note that both Maccabees and Josephus point out that Antiochus violated his treaty of peace with the Jews in 167-168 BC - i.e. in the middle of the seventieth week (I Maccabees 1:29, Josephus Antiquities Book XX 11:3, Dan 9:27).

--Curtvdh 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some expansion. For instance, the skeptical position is barely alluded to: "Skeptical scholars like J.A. Montgomery claim that the weeks are really the same as the years previously decreed. This allows for the fulfillment of the prophecy to reside in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes". OK, but how exactly? I see no mention of the events of the Maccabean Rebellion, the murder of the Anointed One (high priest), the Abomination of Desolation (the statue of Zeus in the temple) and so on. --Robert Stevens 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get started on a revision - I'm familiar with the Maccabean Interpretation as well as the Dispensationalist. I need to do a little research on the Preterist interpretation, as well as the various Jewish interpretations. Fortunately, I have over 30 commentaries on Daniel covering all the major interpretations in my personal library, so I don't have to go far ;-) --Curtvdh 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I remember Montgomery saying, which added weight to the Christian messiah theory was that the time periods didn't match up. But I think if you take 'return and restore' Jerusalem in Jeremiah's sense 25:5, the first seven weeks are an approximation of the time mentioned in verse 2 (including other prophets), 62 weeks from the 4th year of Jehoikim takes us to Onias III (I think). Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope Curtvdh gets back to us. At the present moment of time I lean towards Nethaniel West's interpretation in which he believes the first week took more than 49 years to be fulfilled as the years when the Jews were in apostasy and not building the wall are not to be counted. If your unfamiliar with West's theory I will dig out his dates. I am reluctant to abandon the belief that the last week has yet to be fulfilled.--Another berean (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I have preferred the Christian interpretation has been that the last verses speak of extermination - which happened in 70AD. But could Strong's number 3617 be 3615 - a verb. The consonants and pointings are the same, and it could be 'until finished' - no mention of extermination. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Mauro - article required[edit]

We could do with a Wikipedia article about Philip Mauro (1859-1952), a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day. The biography by Gordon P. Gardiner could be a useful source to start this. See [1]. DFH 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Chronology[edit]

This article, Book of Ezra, and Book of Nehemiah, all contain a lengthy section about trying to date the events shared in common. The section was added to this article by User:Wstruse (whose only edits have been to these three articles and his user page) and then added as a whole to the other two articles. Given the encyclopedic importance of the issue it should be in the Wiki, but it doesn't need to be in three places. Worse, I think this may well include a copy edit violation, given the non-sequitur nature of having Tables 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, but no others. I am uncertain as to whether this should be broken out into a separate article or left as an article in this article, but it defnitely needs a rewrite, verification, and a check against possible copyvios. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It contains redundancies with the preceding section and also nonsense about Darius (who has enough years but is clearly not called Artaxerxes, wbich BTW is not a title but the actual name of the King nick-named Longimanus and later adopted as regnal names by Artaxerxes II, III (Ochus) and IV (Arses). Str1977 (smile back) 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite & Verification[edit]


I agree, this chronology does not need to be in three places. I am not sure the best way to go about rectifying the situation. I provided the contribution with the hope that someone would be able to present it in a more desirable manner. I realize my writing skills leave much to be desired. As to the copy edit violations, the words as well as the tables are mine. The tables were created by me in Xcel format. I could not provide them as originally created hence the table without the format.


For those who may be interested in rewriting this information or verifying it the following may also be useful.

The Apocrypha is considered an extra-Biblical text that was not included in the Cannon of Scriptures that makes up the common Bible today. The Apocrypha contains the books of 1st Esdras & 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras). The book of 1st Esdras is almost a word for word version of the Canonical books of Ezra, Nehemiah and part of Chronicles. 2nd Esdras (4th) contains much more information regarding Ezra and his prophetic visions relating to the end of the age and the Messianic era. None of 2nd Esdras (Ezra) is contained in the Canonical Scriptures. 1st Esdras and 2nd Esdras were in wide circulation up until at least the council of Trent. It is from Esdras that Josephus repeatedly quotes or references. Josephus died in 79 AD so it is likely that the books of Esdras were in circulation some decades before his death. It is likely that Esdras was based on the original Hebrew versions of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles that were in circulation at that time.

In 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras), Ezra states that he was in Babylon 30 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. 2nd Esdras also states that Ezra was one of the last remaining prophets of his time.

4 Esdras 3:1-2 In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was in Babylon, and lay troubled upon my bed, and my thoughts came up over my heart: 2 For I saw the desolation of Sion, and the wealth of them that dwelt at Babylon.

4 Esdras 10:44-48 44 This woman, whom thou sawest is Sion: and whereas she said unto thee, even she whom thou seest as a city builded, 45 Whereas, I say, she said unto thee, that she hath been thirty years barren: those are the thirty years wherein there was no offering made in her. 46 But after thirty years Solomon builded the city and offered offerings: and then bare the barren a son. 47 And whereas she told thee that she nourished him with labour: that was the dwelling in Jerusalem. 48 But whereas she said unto thee, That my son coming into his marriage chamber happened to have a fail, and died: this was the destruction that came to Jerusalem.

This book of 2nd (4th) Esdras confirms that Ezra was alive during the Babylonian captivity. Not only was he alive but 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e. 556 BC) he was a respected prophet of the people in Babylon. This confirms the Canonical book of Ezra where it states that Seraiah the high priest was Ezra’s father. As a respected prophet 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem Ezra is definitely a 1st generation member of the Judean captives. Ezra’s father died in around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so at a minimum Ezra the prophet was 30 years old when these events are described in 2nd Esdras.

In 1909 Louis Ginzberg chronologically collated the traditions of the Jewish people found in the Talmud, Midrash and other traditional oral sources. These traditions or “Legends of the Jews” all centered on the oral traditions regarding the Scriptural narrative. Here are a few of excerpts from the “The Legends of the Jews”:

In the “Legends of the Jewspart XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY It states the following regarding Ezra:

…………….The complete resettlement of Palestine took place under the direction of Ezra, or, as the Scriptures sometimes call him, Malachi. He had not been present at the earlier attempts to restore the sanctuary, because he could not leave his old teacher Baruch, who was too advanced in years to venture upon the difficult journey to the Holy Land. …………………………….

In the “Legends of the Jewspart XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY It states the following regarding Daniel:

…………………….. The king consented on condition that Daniel designate a successor worthy of him. His choice fell upon Zerubbabel. Loaded with rich presents and amid public demonstrations designed to honor him, Daniel retired from public life. He settled in the city of Shushan, where he abode until his end. Though he was no prophet, God vouchsafed to him a knowledge of the "end of time" not granted his friends, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but even he, in the fulness of his years, lost all memory of the revelation with which he had been favored. …………..

Both of the above passages place Ezra as a contemporary with Daniel, Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah. The 1st specifically state that Ezra was alive during the first attempts to restore the 2nd temple. The 2nd passage states that Ezra (also called Malachi) was a friend of Daniel. Granted the Apocrypha and Ginsberg’s “Legends of the Jews” are not considered “inspired” texts. At a minimum they are examples of historical documents that in fact do confirm the Scriptural record regarding Ezra as a 1st generation Babylonian exile who lived contemporaneously with Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel and Daniel.

Regards, Wstruse Wstruse 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I find the Prophecy of Daniel's 70th Week wholly prejudiced in its emphasis and co-opted by the Seventh-Day Adventist brand of eschatology. Daniel's Seventieth Week is not the exclusive purview of the Adventists--most definitely, Dispensationalists or Progressive Dispensationalists are wholly engaged in the debate over the futurity of Daniel's Seventieth Week and have been since 1840. The futurity of Daniel's 70th Week is also a major emphasis in the early Church, especially in the third century (i.e., its total futurity in the writings of Hippolytus (his tractates on Daniel and Antichrist acclaim the entire 70th Week of Daniel is yet future). In particular, I find it disconcerting to attribute the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ in that the antecedent in Daniel 9:27 (i.e., "he" shall confirm a covenant, etc.) was and is NOT Jesus Christ during His ministry or at His crucifixion or His resurrection, but that this "he" is none other than the previous individual mentioned in Daniel 9:26: "the prince who is to come" - the same one whose people destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and some say, yet future destruction of Jerusalem.

In all intellectual fairness, this article is wholly deficient and I believe the editors of Wikipedia must come to grips with what is actually a very one-sided presentation of this most significant piece of prophetic writ. MOST of American Evangelicalism holds to a Premillenarian view of Bible prophecy. And, in the main (witness "The Late Great Planet Earth" and the entire "Left Behind Series") affirms that the commencement of the Daniel's 70th Week is the "Treaty with Hell and Death" - the infamous Treaty between Antichrist and Israel to guarantee Israel's security in the "end of days."

There is a complete disconnect of Daniel 9:27 on the part of the Adventists from the the remaining verses of Daniel 7 through 12 (Chapters 7-12) which speaks directly and in context to what is going on in Daniel 9 - i.e., Daniel 9 is not a "stand alone" - there are a multitude of direct and adumbrative texts in Daniel which preclude that Daniel 9:27 be interpreted in isolation! Again, the Seventh-Day Adventists do not own the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Regards, DWKrieger kriegerdwm 00:36, 11 December 2007 (PST)

I believe we need to redo the structure of this article. I may not be the right one to do it (time, patience, and courage!), but suggest the following structure. I am particularly interested in the fulfilment section (section 6). There is some interesting history about the development of the Adventist thought, which may belong elsewhere? To be fair, we could also include history of the development of the other persuasions (eg preterist view). I've arbitrarily put the Jewish viewpoint first as they are less likely to accept the NT part of the Bible. So, how does it look?

  • 7 Fulfillment
  • 7.2 Jewish viewpoints
  • 7.3 Christian Preterist viewpoint or Already Fulfilled by Christ's Time

(includes note that this view is held by Catholic faiths

  • 7.4 Christian Dispensationalist viewpoints or Partially fulfilled by Antioches Epiphanes

(includes notes that many Christians hold this view) (sometimes includes Messiah component)

  • 7.5 Christian Historicist / Traditional viewpoints or Already fulfilled by Jesus Christ as Messiah

(Includes note that this view is held by Seventh-day Adventists) (Includes section on different timeline and note that this is held by Jehovah's Witnesses)

  • 7.6 Christian Futurist viewpoints

(not sure if we need this)

  • 7.7 Other interpretations

(if someone is neither Jewish nor Christian, would they be interested in Bible prophecy? I can't imagine yet, but maybe I'm missing something.) Relloblue (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Antichrist and Daniel's 70th Week[edit]

I find the Prophecy of Daniel's 70th Week wholly prejudiced in its emphasis and co-opted by the Seventh-Day Adventist brand of eschatology. Daniel's Seventieth Week is not the exclusive purview of the Adventists--most definitely, Dispensationalists or Progressive Dispensationalists are wholly engaged in the debate over the futurity of Daniel's Seventieth Week and have been since 1840. The futurity of Daniel's 70th Week is also a major emphasis in the early Church, especially in the third century (i.e., its total futurity in the writings of Hippolytus (his tractates on Daniel and Antichrist acclaim the entire 70th Week of Daniel is yet future). In particular, I find it disconcerting to attribute the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ in that the antecedent in Daniel 9:27 (i.e., "he" shall confirm a covenant, etc.) was and is NOT Jesus Christ during His ministry or at His crucifixion or His resurrection, but that this "he" is none other than the previous individual mentioned in Daniel 9:26: "the prince who is to come" - the same one whose people destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and some say, yet future destruction of Jerusalem.

In all intellectual fairness, this article is wholly deficient and I believe the editors of Wikipedia must come to grips with what is actually a very one-sided presentation of this most significant piece of prophetic writ. MOST of American Evangelicalism holds to a Premillenarian view of Bible prophecy. And, in the main (witness "The Late Great Planet Earth" and the entire "Left Behind Series") affirms that the commencement of the Daniel's 70th Week is the "Treaty with Hell and Death" - the infamous Treaty between Antichrist and Israel to guarantee Israel's security in the "end of days."

There is a complete disconnect of Daniel 9:27 on the part of the Adventists from the the remaining verses of Daniel 7 through 12 (Chapters 7-12) which speaks directly and in context to what is going on in Daniel 9 - i.e., Daniel 9 is not a "stand alone" - there are a multitude of direct and adumbrative texts in Daniel which preclude that Daniel 9:27 be interpreted in isolation! Again, the Seventh-Day Adventists do not own the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Regards, DWKrieger kriegerdwm 00:36, 11 December 2007 (PST)

Verse 27 is not isolated from the rest, because verses 25-27 form a tight literary chiasm. It is the literary structure that defines who the antecedent is to which "he". In this case the literary structure is:
Jerusalem constructed
Messiah to come
Jerusalem constructed
Messiah comes to save others not himself
Jerusalem destroyed
Messiah cancels the written code, with its regulations, (i.e. the Temple ceremonial code/law) nailing it to the cross
Jerusalem destroyed
The "Left Behind Series" is a novel based on very sloppy interpretation of Bible Prophecy. Hal Lindsey was proven wrong in the 1980s when all his predictions were supposed to have come true. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating of the prophecy or authenticating it[edit]

Could the fact that the numbers in the prophecy are written out in full, rather than using numerals, allow for, although not prove, an earlier dating of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This site says Hebrews generally used numbers spelt out (documents?) or, in inscriptions, frequently written according to well known 'arbitrary' symbols (while speculating that one instance of using alphabetic numerals at that age may have been found dating from 312BCE): The 'spelt out' numbers must be in the bible, but it does say this was also the practice of the Phoenicians. Although there are exceptions (there are inscriptions spelt out (such as the Moabite stone and the Siloam inscription - both of which at some time were claimed by scholars to be written after the claimed date(The Story of a Forgery and the Mesa Inscription, A. S. Yahuda and 'Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah', Rogerson and Davies), and manuscripts with numerals (the hypothetical proto-masoretic script)), this is a rough guide and there is no unequivocal correlation between style and chronology.

Archaic numbers: From 'Insight on the Scriptures' under Number, Numerals, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, it is said that numbers written on archaic Saloam Tunnel are fully spelled out. The Moabite stone is one example, dating from 930BCE. Could the writer have avoided numerals because of the official nature of the stone? In 'The Phoenician Stele Inscription from Cilicia' by R. Marcus and I.J.Gelb, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 8, No 2 (Apr 1949) pp116-120, the Phoenician Stele (740BCE), an official artifact, included a vertical stroke for the number 1, for 1 sheep in column 3, line 2, "as normally in hieroglyphic Hittite". If this was a Phoenician inscription, the use of numerals is in accordance with Phoenician and Hebrew custom.

Six examples of archaic numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talkcontribs) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moabite stone (Mid 9th century BC) includes the number thirty and forty as the reigns of kings. In an article in Vetus Testamentum (Vol 52, Fasc 4 (Oct 2002) pp483-492), J.A.Emerton says another author regarded the Moabite stone as a work of fiction (partly because of its' nicely rounded numbers). Emerton refuted this, but the question remains - why weren't numerals used on the Moabite stone? Possibly because of the simple rounded nature of both numerals. (Regarding the Siloam tunnel, In "Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah", John Rogerson and Philip R. Davies say: " is frequently not possible to prove on paleographic evidence alone whether a text in paleo-Hebrew dates from, say, the eighth-seventh centuries or is Hasmonean or later". But both these artifacts are well respected).

A paleo-Hebrew TELL QUDEIRAT Ostracon (another inscription) dates from 600BCE and uses hieratic numerals up to one hundred thousand:, obviously preferring the numerals to written form.

Samaritan Ostraca (800BCE) written in ink on shards of pottery (not broken from a whole vase) and having the same Phonecian script as the Moabite Stone and Siloam tunnel inscription: "The years mentioned are the ninth and tenth, which are always spelled in full, and two others, apparently eleventh and thirteenth, which are always expressed as figures" (Harvard Theological Review, "Hebrew Ostraca from Samaria"). Gandz ('Hebrew Numerals') says several other symbols appear as the number 15 and perhaps the number 17. The number 15 is identical to the hieratic numerals. This is the reverse of the numeral 1 and spelled out number thirty. The figures used in the Ostraca are years of reign, or dates. The figures in the above paragraph are part of remarks. However there are no numerals in the Old Testament at all, it seems the text has been edited and it would be unsafe to draw any chronological conclusions as it is at the moment.

In discussing the hypothetical proto-masoretic numbering system, some articles cite stone masons' marks on the wall of Jerusalem. This site, in the footnote, says the markings were verticle and horizontal strokes too: But these are 'inscriptions as well. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A find of several sumerian tablets dating from ~600BC has the unusual feature that a lot of numbers in a mathematical table are spelt out as words. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In "Number Idioms of Old Babylonia" by Albrecht Gretze, in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 5 #3 (Jul 1946) p186, it says in recently found mathematical tablets there were "a considerable number with phonetic spelling"

Late numbers: JSTOR: Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, Vol 4 (1932 - 1933) p 53 -112. p85 says: "However, T Reinbach already advocated the theory that these coins belong rather to a time of 66-70 AD. It is true, Reinbach in his learnerd article on Numismatics, in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, retracted his former opinion and favoured again the date of 139 BC, GA Cooke still holds... that the coins belong to the first revolt against the Romans." The coins were dated for example 'first year' using the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Reinbach's reasoning is available on line at the Jewish Encyclopaedia under ' Date of coins' in the section referred to - numismatics. The section above the dating of coins contains the command to mint them.

Here numerals, which are usually reserved for inscriptions are used in manuscripts. This encyclopaedia says the Elephantine papryi in Aramaic used verticle strokes for units and horozontal strokes for tens. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) It seems clear this was the phoenician numbering system as described here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talkcontribs) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Archaic writings testify to the use of numerals - with the Hebrews adopting the contemporary system in use. It is mysterious that there are no numerals in the Old Testament (as stated by "Insight on the Scriptures".

If it is true that numbers, in all cultures, graduated from spelt-out form to numerals wone would expect the New Testament ot be mainly cipher numbers. This link says that this is the case, even though Nestle writes them out: (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be a very substantial argument in any case, as it's generally agreed that Daniel purports to be a product of the 6th century BC. If I was writing a fake Shakespeare play, I'd use the language and style of that period, not modern English. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If the choice of spelled out numbers is due to a Hebrew preference for this in formal text, as Robert Stevens said the writer would naturally prefer this if he was writing as if from God.

Infact there must have been cipher numbers in a copy of the Masoretic text around the time of the writing of the septuagint as the Emphatic Diaglott says ""A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Bible chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one seems entirely satisfactory; i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1has been corrupted by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5), which is very similar in form. This would make 580 (instead of 480) from the exodus to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul's chronology."

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Although a more recent book on chronology states different reasons, not resorting to copying errors:

Am I right in thinking that the Dead Sea Scrolls only have a few fragments of Daniel and none of the key verses relating to the 70 weeks were discovered? This is a pity as I hold the opinion that radiocarbon dating methods can be very accurate--Another berean (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked this link and you are right, Daniel 9 was not found, thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Although I checked some other sources and three or four fragments of one word length were found from the prayer of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran Part1: A preliminary edition of 4QDana"BASOR 268 Eugene Ulrich, p17:" consists of only five tiny fragments all from the prayer in chapter 9, but none with more than one complete word"

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel 9's conservative dating[edit]

Three or four fragments of one word length were found from the prayer of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran Part1: A preliminary edition of 4QDana"BASOR 268 Eugene Ulrich, p17:" consists of only five tiny fragments all from the prayer in chapter 9, but none with more than one complete word"

The author of this writing gives a future dated (AD) prophetic interpretation of Daniel 9's 70 weeks from the Essenes and mentions that the Pharasees also had a similar prophetic interpretation.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the mechanism of prophecy is prophetic dramas (Gal 4:24), Antiochus Epiphanes could have inspired the 70 week prophecy. The word 'understanding' seen in this context could (I wonder) be 'inspired dark sentences' (Dan 8:23).

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a style of writing would be in keeping with the Bible's style of hyperbole. A tidal wave saves the leaving Israwlites: Moses divided the water and the Israelites didn't even get their feet wet; God creates heaven and earth: but the earth puts forth animals; Moses goes up into an active volcano:the earthquakes are called trumpets; a plague kills 185000 Assyrians who were to attack Judah: the king is saved from Assyrian crucifixion miraculously and Psalm 22 has Christians...

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why from Jesus' birth to the fall of Jerusalem is roughly 70 years? - referring to the 70 sabbaths

Is it some sort of parousia of the Lord of the Sabbath?

Jesus said he would be with us until the conclusion Matt 28:20; which could be the destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to enter this in the article as it is a theory but as Gabriel mentions 'a word went forth' could Daniel's words the 'going forth' of the word imply Jesus' going forth from the house of Judah or Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2) and a seventy Sundays begin from then and end at Jerusalem's destruction. The word 'going forth' is discussed in under mo-tsaw'. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created the calendar could have back-dated the birth of Christ to 70 years before the fall of Jerusalem. (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts?[edit]

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. All those dates and events are historical and can even be found on other WP pages. What is it that doesn't make them facts? SDA's didn't make them up. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for which facts? You are extremely vague. You have yet to prove that there is anything controversial about any of the facts about the reconstruction of Jerusalem. And you expect that we are supposed to just take your word for it?! Jerusalem was destroyed. Jerusalem was rebuilt. The exact dates are relatively unimportant. What's your problem....... Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you object to the SDA Bible Commentary? It is just as good as any other Bible commentary. Just in case you didn't know, the SDA church is the second or third largest protestant church in the world with some 16 to 17 million members. It operates at least 10 Universities (i.e., Loma Linda University and Medical Center) besides many more colleges, hundreds of secondary schools, and thousands of elementary schools. It has operated government approved archeological digs in Jordan and Israel for more than 40 years. All digs have been published in appropriate journals. To accuse SDA scholars of being unaware of archeology is an argument based on abysmal ignorance. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
to JoshuaZ. Christian Skeptic (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing JoshuaZ's edit, he is correct. An SDA source is not an impartial source for validating details asserted to be facts by SDAs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the first paragraph above, the very same information is found on several other WP pages, and they have been linked. So his asking for sources for data already established on WP is ridiculous. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, an SDA source is not a valid source for confirming SDA beliefs as fact. If there are other sources, use them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't using an SDA source to confirm any SDA belief as a fact. And I don't understand which facts you are talking about? You are just as vague as the other guy. Exactly what 'facts" are you talking about??
The only "historical facts" I was talking about was the reconstruction of Jerusalem after the exile and it's destruction by the Romans. Both of those are well-known historical facts independent of anything SDAs might believe. Kennedy was shot in Houston in 1961. This is a historical fact regardless of all those who believe that Nostradamus predicted his death. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
But you wouldn't use a reference from Nostradamus to establish when Kennedy was shot, you would use a reference that is universally accepted. That is the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't used prophecy to establish when Jesus was baptized. The date of Jesus baptism comes from Luke (which is not a prophecy but a narrative) that mentions the year of Tiberius that John began baptizing and Jesus baptized by John (i.e. 27 AD). It happens, however, that calculating the prophetic 483 years from 457 BC (the 7th year from the historical date of Artaxerxes beginning to reign) one also gets 27 BC. The prophecy doesn't establish the date of the baptism, rather the baptismal date establishes the prophecy. some may argue that Daniel wasn't written until the 2nd century BC., But that doesn't help. There were no calendars back then. An author in the 2nd century BC would not know how far back came the decree of Artaxerxes, neither would he know the year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah. Even the author of Luke would not know the date of Artaxerxes, because there was no common calendar by which to date old events such as we have today. The concordance of the timing of the prophecy with the events in the 1st century BC are impossible to account for but for God being the author of the prophecy. Trying to apply the prophecy of Daniel 9 to any other event, especially anything in the 2nd C. BC, is an exercise in futility. It cannot possibly approach the accuracy of that applyed to Jesus. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There are so many layers of speculation in this that it is barely worth responding to. The fact that Josephus later was able to present historical records prior to Artaxerxes invalidates the claim that Luke could not have had access to such records. When the later Christian re-interpretation of Daniel 9 is removed, the chapter is not actually a Messianic prophecy at all, but rather, 'Messiah' (משיח, mashiyach) in Daniel 9:25-26 actually refers to Cyrus, in reference to the 'anointed one' at Isaiah 45:1, where the same Hebrew word is found. The re-appliction to Jesus was back-formed later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The accuracy of historical dates is much better today than in those days. It is impossible for anyone to have faked these prophecies and faked "fulfillment" of the prophecies to make them come out with the accuracy they have. Jewish scholars over centuries have proposed many ideas to try to explain the Bible, but that doesn't mean they have truth in them. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Using an SDA source to confirm that SDA hold certain beliefs sounds pretty good to me. (Aside from the fact that the beliefs are completely nutty). PiCo (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The primary concern with my tagging it as facts were the dates given which are in the SDA material but are not as far as I'm aware accepted by all secular scholars. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Were you tagging just that paragraph, or the entire section? The only date in the paragraph is 70AD for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which is the accepted date so far as I know. The mass of other dates elsewhere in the section tends to give me a headache - I think the whole section could be reduced by about half and made more comprehensible. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was tagging that these were "historical facts" in that the details especially the dates aren't agreed upon and seemed to be primarily the SDA chronology. There's no issue using the SDA's own sources for their chronology but then we need an independent source stating that those dates are correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I put links to other WP pages where dates for the reconstruction and destruction of Jerusalem are given. SDA's use commonly accepted historical dates for these events as found in just about any historical source. The computations shown in the illustrations are based upon commonly accepted dates for the beginning of the reigns of Artaxerxes and Tiberius (again see the WP links to confirm the dates). Even the distinction between civil and religious Jewish Calendars is linked to WP, it is not an SDA invention. Everything else is SDA interpretation sourced from SDA literature. Thus, there are non-SDA sources for all base historical dates in the section. If you have a problem with SDA interpretation, fine, but the base starting dates are long accepted dates for historical events. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see that there's any need for sections on SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses viewpoints - they're just subsets of Christian beliefs, and pretty marginal ones at that (both are tiny sects). Perhaps both should be reduced to a sentence each in the Christian section. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
These sections have to do with historicist and dispensationalist interpretations. If you are going to drastically cut the historicist interpretation, then the dispensationalist interpretation needs to be cut just as much. The historicist interpretation was the primary interpretation of Daniel by nearly all Protestants up through the 19th century. Dispensationalist interpretation has grown in popularity since the mid-19th century to where it has become the majority view today. But to ignore the historicist interpretation would be to ignore or rewrite history. It's not up the the editors to rewrite history, but to present what is and was. Perhaps a separate page on the historicist interpretation (and another for the dispensationalist interpretation) of the 70 weeks is in order. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
After a quick review of the article, I'm even more convinced that the Christian Views section is far too long - far, far longer than either the Jewish Views section (and Daniel is, after all, a Jewish book) or the Secular Views section (if that's what it's called). If you make your section too long, you risk losing readers - will they want to wade through all this? Have a go at reducing the whole Christian section to the same length as the Jewish section. At the very least, it'll be a useful exercise in condensing your argument. PiCo (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the prophecies of Daniel have played a much larger place in Christianity than in Judaism. The entire Protestant movement was predicated on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. One would expect much more from Christiany than Judaism on the topic. This is especially so since a ban was placed by rabbis warning Jewish people away from reading Daniel. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the Protestant movement was predicated on the abuses and corruption of the early Renaissance Catholic Church, but that's not really to the point. I'm not arguing that the Christian section should be drastically curtailed itself, but that there's no need for separate SDA and Jehovah Witness sections, nor for the entire entry to be quite so long and detailed. PiCo (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Abuses and corruption were a part of it, but there was much more. It was recognized that these factors and others were due to apostasy from many Biblical truths as the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation predicted would happen by the Church causing it to be identified as the Antichrist. As for size, this article is only 48 kb long. The article about the Book of Daniel is 65 kb. And what's wrong with detail that is clear and easily readable and well illustrated. Also, there are separate JW sections in several of the other articles on Daniel's prophecies. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed clauses[edit]

I think that the disputed clauses should not have built in commentary, but rather a note/link to where a commentary/explanation can be found lower down in the article. (i.e. such as in the Jewish interpretation section below.) Otherwise, this could become a rather cumbersome section as all kinds of note may be added to explain various positions.

Just for the record, in vs. 24 I agree that it is Most holy Place. However, I go with The Anointed One or Messiah for the other verses. as you say, Messiah the Prince not a name but a title, or two titles actually. Some don't put much stock in the scholarship of the original translators of the Bible into English. But, I have no confidence in Modern Scholarship which is primarily atheistic and skeptical and based upon reinterpretation of the texts within Naturalism's "Higher Criticism" which is basically BS. I'll go with believers interpretation any day over unbelievers. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified 9:25, indicating that Hebrew punctuation isn't the issue. The Masoretic text is only making explicit the meaning present in the text, a punctuation not used by the translators of the KJV who arrived at the same meaning. I have therefore omitted the following sentence which doesn't deal with the substantive issue.

Since the Dead sea scrolls have no punctuation, ref: The Dead Sea scrolls predate the Masoretic text by 1000 years. They contain parts of all the books of the Hebrew Bible but for Esther. Not one scrap of scroll has pronunciation nor punctuation marks. /ref Some Christians consider the insertion of punctuation here in the Masoretic text to be inaccurate.

--spin (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This is some original research, so I included it here. The LXX and MT differ in that the LXX uses the word 'temple' in vs 27; the MT uses 'overspreading'. But according to Gesesius כָּנָף can mean 'highest summit' of the temple - so the LXX was right in its' translation but it can also mean a shirt, skirt, surrounding, cornering...and I think this is close to the MT meaning and it reflects what happened in 70CE. So both authorities, the MT and LXX are respectable. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Establishing The 20th Year of Artaxerxes Reign[edit]


This discussion explores the evidence that tends to establish or qualify suggested dates for the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Reign. This is of importance as it tends to establish the beginning of the Seventy Weeks of Years as per Daniel Chapter 9, taken from a historical view.

I have laid out a outline which I hope my peers will find helpful. I hope you will freely enter your findings within the skeleton provided. It is my intention to add this as a section to an appropriate area of the main page in due course. Enjoy.

Evidence for 455 BC?[edit]

How long did Artaxerxes Longimanus rule?[edit]

Was it only for 41 years, or was it 51 years?

Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year[edit]

(Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) which is a commercial document from Borshippa containing dates relating to Artaxerxes 50th year.

However some suggest that this contains a typo, and that it should say 40th year.

Perhaps other more relevant tablets will be unearthed in due course. After all, Archaeology Odyssey states: “Experts estimate that somewhere between one and two million cuneiform tablets have already been excavated, and another 25,000 or so are found every year.” (Obviously not all relating to the subject of Artaxerxes or even Persia.)

This is a large workload for Cuneiform scholars. According to one estimate, “only about 1/10 of the extant cuneiform texts have been read even once in modern times.” (source?) You can see why they get only read once, cuneiform is soooo dry.

So perhaps there is further evidence, even a mass of it, yet awaiting translation. But that's a original synthesis so I won't repeat it.

Greek sources[edit]

Establishing The Death Date of Themistocles[edit]

The death of Themistocles seems pivotal in fixing the start of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. What evidence is there to support the several dates suggested by commentators?

Diodorus Siculus[edit]
Plutarch’s Lives[edit]
M. de Koutorga[edit]
E. Levesque[edit]

Persian sources[edit]

Was there really a coregency of Xerxes with Darius? Artaxerxes Longimanus was the successor of Xerxes, and a consideration of factors supporting or denying a coregency may solve some historical riddles.

Sculpture & Bas Reliefs[edit]

Babylonian sources[edit]

Palace Excavations[edit]
A. 124[edit]
VAT 4397[edit]

Evidence for ? BC[edit]

could put evidence that strongly supports alternate years here.

El presidente sooty (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


I have cleaned up some of the POV in this section, but it is still unsourced and does not provide a good balance of views. Nowhere does the Bible specify that the Jews were in captivity for exactly 70 years. Also, no mention is made in the article of the 70 year period between 609 (fall of Harran to the Babylonians) and 539 (fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaced JPS 1917 Edition with Judaica Press Translation[edit]

The JPS 1917 edition is not a true "Jewish translation."

The original 1917 JPS Tanach is oftne quoted and found all over the internet because the copyright is over so it is easy to find online. Because it was published by Jews (Jewish Publication Society) they assume that it is a Jewish translation, but it is nothing more than a slightly modified KJV / ERSV. Dr. Welty has fallen into the same error as many others who try to use it to support Chrstian arguments that it is an accurate "Jewish" translation from the Hebrew / Aramaic "source."

The Preface to the 1985 JPS admits that the 1917 edition is not in reality a Jewish translation:

Quote: "With the rise of Protestantism in Europe, scholars within the movement set themselves the task of making the Bible available in the various vernaculars of the time.
By 1526 the first parts of two notable translations began to appear: Martin Luther's in German and William Tyndale's in English. The latter, by way of several subsequent revisions, became the King James Version of 1611.
The more modern English versions - such as The Holy *****ures by the American Rabbi Isaac Leeser (1855), the (British) Revised Version (1881-1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Jewish Publication Society's The Holy Scriputes (1917), and the (American) Revised Standard Version (1952) - made extensive use of the King James."

Leonard Greenspoon is an authority on bible translations speaks about the 1917 JPS in his article "Birth of a Bible" most "translations" into English were based on the KJV until as late as the 1960s and 1970s. There were one or two in the 19th century, but they weren't widely accepted and went out of print. From Greenspoon:

Quote: the earliest English versions were either
(a) a volume with KJV on one side, the Hebrew text facing, with a few Jewish exegetical notes at the bottom of the page; or
(b) a listing of KJV passages that needed to be corrected either because they were erroneous or should be improved upon.
There was a reluctance among Jews to part company with the KJV, even after Protestants began to experiment with entirely new translations rather than KJV revisions. This was the case as late as the JPS 1917 version, which is a rather light revision of the English Revised Version of 1885 (a direct descendant of KJV),although no reader of the JPS version would discern this on the basis of the title page or introduction. Such reluctance says a great deal about the Jewish communitys self-image as well as the image it wished to project for outsiders.

Therefore the 1917 JPS should not be used as a "Jewish" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiee1 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Rabbinic perspective[edit]

I think that I did a good job in presenting the traditional Rabbinic perspective, which was sorely lacking. I think that the whole article needs to be rewritten and reorganized, so as to avoid repetition and other problems. Unfortunately, I can't do much to improve the christian element, which needs to be condensed as well as be more clear. I also think that the whole table (called disputed clauses) is unnecessary, done very poorly, and combersome. Does someone have the guts to remove it? Nossond (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just edit what you have expertise in and leave that which you don't for others. You are correct that there are parts of the article which are not well sourced. You can call attention to that with fact notes. You can rewrite that which you are well versed in. You could probably edit other parts as long as you strive to keep the intent of the material. Other editors will be watching. The point of the article is to give the various positions on the subject. Allenroyboy (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Are three different translations of the same passage necessary?[edit]

Seems a little overkill to me. NIV has a margin reading which says 'sevens' is also translated as weeks. Opinions? Willfults (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with Willfults[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Willfults, I look forward to collaborating with you to make this a better Wikipedia article. I see that you have employed the principle of deletionism in your edits to thie article -- you deleted content that you described as being not properly referenced, or original research, instead of marking the content you found questionable with Wikipedia template tags like 'Unreferenced' or 'Original Research'. I will follow your lead and continue employing the philosophy of deletionism to current content that does not meet the Wikipedia standards of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Let's discuss the content here on Talk page and come to a consensus before putting it back.

You noted that you did take the trimming of the 3 different bibles to the Talk page. If you felt that taking such a relatively peripheral, non-contentious item to the Talk page appropriate, then kal va-chomer surely you will agree that taking the core subject matter content to the Talk page is essential.

Thanks very much... Zad68 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Context (collaboration with Willfults)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Here is the 'Context' section removed from article. It does not meet the Wikipedia standards of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. My notes:

  1. I understand that all of this must be the particular viewpoint of a particular sect of Christianity, and as such it must be tagged with that context clearly. I'm not even sure which Christian denomination's viewpoint it is.
  2. It needs to be changed so that it does not appear that Wikipedia has a particular religious viewpoint -- for example, a Wikipedia article should not give Jesus the title 'Christ', and instead it should refer to him as 'Jesus.' Likewise, it is not WP:NPOV to refer to Jesus with the capitalized pronouns He or Him.
  3. The biblical references are only useful if they are provided in the context of a scholarly analysis. A Wikipedia article cannot depend on a particular person's biblical exegesis as the one, definitive interpretation for all denominations and religions. I did not see any scholarly references in this section.

Willfults - can you please help by addressing these items? I am not a Greek scripture scholar and I think you would do a better job of this than I would. Thanks! Zad68 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

— Mark 1:14, 15
Zad68 vs. Willfults: Original research

The Messiah's coming had been first announced in Judea. In the temple at Jerusalem the birth of the forerunner had been foretold to Zacharias as he ministered before the altar. On the hills of Bethlehem the angels had proclaimed the birth of Jesus. To Jerusalem the magi had come in search of Him. In the temple Simeon and Anna had testified to His divinity. "Jerusalem, and all Judea" had listened to the preaching of John the Baptist; and the deputation from the Sanhedrin, with the multitude, had heard his testimony concerning Jesus. In Judea, Christ had received His first disciples. Here much of His early ministry had been spent. The flashing forth of His divinity in the cleansing of the temple, His miracles of healing, and the lessons of divine truth that fell from His lips, all proclaimed that which after the healing at Bethesda He had declared before the Sanhedrin,--His Sonship to the Eternal.

If the leaders in Israel had received Christ, He would have honoured them as His messengers to carry the gospel to the world. To them first was given the opportunity to become heralds of the kingdom and grace of God. But Israel knew not the time of her visitation. The jealousy and distrust of the Jewish leaders had ripened into open hatred, and the hearts of the people were turned away from Jesus.

The Sanhedrin had rejected Christ's message and was bent upon His death; therefore Jesus departed from Jerusalem, from the priests, the temple, the religious leaders, the people who had been instructed in the law, and turned to another class to proclaim His message, and to gather out those who should carry the gospel to all nations.

As the light and life of men was rejected by the ecclesiastical authorities in the days of Christ, so it has been rejected in every succeeding generation. Again and again the history of Christ's withdrawal from Judea has been repeated. When the Reformers preached the word of God, they had no thought of separating themselves from the established church; but the religious leaders would not tolerate the light, and those that bore it were forced to seek another class, who were longing for the truth. In our day few of the professed followers of the Reformers are actuated by their spirit. Few are listening for the voice of God, and ready to accept truth in whatever guise it may be presented. Often those who follow in the steps of the Reformers are forced to turn away from the churches they love, in order to declare the plain teaching of the word of God. And many times those who are seeking for light are by the same teaching obliged to leave the church of their fathers, that they may render obedience.

The people of Galilee were despised by the rabbis of Jerusalem as rude and unlearned, yet they presented a more favourable field for the Saviour's work. They were more earnest and sincere; less under the control of bigotry; their minds were more open for the reception of truth. In going to Galilee, Jesus was not seeking seclusion or isolation. The province was at this time the home of a crowded population, with a much larger admixture of people of other nations than was found in Judea.

As Jesus travelled through Galilee, teaching and healing, multitudes flocked to Him from the cities and villages. Many came even from Judea and the adjoining provinces. Often He was obliged to hide Himself from the people. The enthusiasm ran so high that it was necessary to take precautions lest the Roman authorities should be aroused to fear an insurrection. Never before had there been such a period as this for the world. Heaven was brought down to men. Hungering and thirsting souls that had waited long for the redemption of Israel now feasted upon the grace of a merciful Saviour.

The burden of Christ's preaching was, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." Thus the gospel message, as given by the Saviour Himself, was based on the prophecies. The "time" which He declared to be fulfilled was the period made known by the angel Gabriel to Daniel. "Seventy weeks," said the angel, "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." Dan. 9:24. A day in prophecy stands for a year. See Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6. The seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety days, represent four hundred and ninety years. A starting point for this period is given: "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," sixty-nine weeks, or four hundred and eighty-three years. Dan. 9:25. The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (see Ezra 6:14; 7:1, 9, margin), went into effect in the autumn of B. C. 457. From this time four hundred and eighty-three years extend to the autumn of A. D. 27. According to the prophecy, this period was to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One. In A. D. 27, Jesus at His baptism received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and soon afterward began His ministry. Then the message was proclaimed. "The time is fulfilled."

Then, said the angel, "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]." For seven years after the Saviour entered on His ministry, the gospel was to be preached especially to the Jews; for three and a half years by Christ Himself; and afterward by the apostles. "In the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Dan. 9:27. In the spring of A. D. 31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to cease.

The one week--seven years--ended in A. D. 34. Then by the stoning of Stephen the Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel; the disciples who were scattered abroad by persecution "went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4); and shortly after, Saul the persecutor was converted, and became Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

Prophecy Of Christ's First Coming[edit]

The time of Christ's coming, His anointing by the Holy Spirit, His death, and the giving of the gospel to the Gentiles, were definitely pointed out. It was the privilege of the Jewish people to understand these prophecies, and to recognise their fulfilment in the mission of Jesus. Christ urged upon His disciples the importance of prophetic study. Referring to the prophecy given to Daniel in regard to their time, He said, "Whoso readeth, let him understand." Matt. 24:15. After His resurrection He explained to the disciples in "all the prophets" "the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27. The Saviour had spoken through all the prophets. "The Spirit of Christ which was in them" "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Peter 1:11.

It was Gabriel, the angel next in rank to the Son of God, who came with the divine message to Daniel. It was Gabriel, "His angel," whom Christ sent to open the future to the beloved John; and a blessing is pronounced on those who read and hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things written therein. Rev. 1:3.

"The Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants and prophets." While "the secret things belong unto the Lord our God," "those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever." Amos 3:7; Deut. 29:29. God has given these things to us, and His blessing will attend the reverent, prayerful study of the prophetic scriptures.

As the message of Christ's first advent announced the kingdom of His grace, so the message of His second advent announces the kingdom of His glory. And the second message, like the first, is based on the prophecies. The words of the angel to Daniel relating to the last days were to be understood in the time of the end. At that time, "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." "The wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." Dan. 12:4, 10. The Saviour Himself has given signs of His coming, and He says, "When ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares." "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:31, 34, 36.

We have reached the period foretold in these scriptures. The time of the end is come, the visions of the prophets are unsealed, and their solemn warnings point us to our Lord's coming in glory as near at hand.

The Jews misinterpreted and misapplied the word of God, and they knew not the time of their visitation. The years of the ministry of Christ and His apostles,--the precious last years of grace to the chosen people,--they spent in plotting the destruction of the Lord's messengers. Earthly ambitions absorbed them, and the offer of the spiritual kingdom came to them in vain. So today the kingdom of this world absorbs men's thoughts, and they take no note of the rapidly fulfilling prophecies and the tokens of the swift-coming kingdom of God.

"But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." While we are not to know the hour of our Lord's return, we may know when it is near. "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." 1 Thess. 5:4-6.

Willfults liked to cut and past from other web pages. He didn't have what it takes to write something original. happily he is blocked.... Johnjonesjr (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually he was not blocked, but he has quit editting since a RFC was filed against him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology-oriented edits[edit]

A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a hit and run pov pusher. This was otherwise a balanced article, it needed work, but... He removed all but the POV he wanted. I'm going to replace the parts he deleted. ColumbiaRiverDiver (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

chronological order.[edit]

I suggest that the order of the Interpretation of prophecy section, which is:

   4.1 Mainstream scholarship
   4.2 Jewish viewpoints
   4.3 Christian viewpoints

be put in chronological order:

   4.1 Jewish viewpoints 
   4.2 Christian viewpoints
   4.3 Mainstream scholarship

CedricElijahHenry (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seventy weeks of Daniel[edit]

In my view the contents of this page is very poor. None of the various views is properly represented, and discussion of the text is absent— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniekerk (talkcontribs) 04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Broadening the Context. Is this original research?[edit]

All discussion of this prophecy reduces to beliefs hedged in by immovable historical facts. But how large a body of believers must there be before a well formed belief is entitled to representation? For example, consider the following modification of the historical-messianic interpretation that broadens the context of the prophecy considerably, linking Jewish, Christian, and Islamic developments. According to it, Daniel’s use of the expression “time, times, and half a time” refers to three consecutive (and slightly overlapping) eras, having durations in a 1: 4: 1/2 ratio. The first “time” is the 490 years measured out by the seventy week prophecy and is that Meridian of Time whose fulfillment under Jesus was recognized in Mark 1:15 as well as Galatians 4: 4. It matches up with the Seventh Day Adventist interpretation. The “times” era refers to the Times of the Gentiles, the midpoint of whose 28 year fulness period, for Christians, came in 1844 with the restoration of temple activity and a covenant making people among the gentiles (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). This fulfilment corresponds to Daniel 8: 13-14, and comes at the end of the associated 2300 year count. It also suggests that the fruition period for Muslims corresponds with the establishment of the Bahai faith, that stretches from about 1857 to 1957. The era of the Gentiles itself ran for 1960 years, ending in approximately 1957. The third era, the Time of the End, is of 245 years duration. But its fulness period (of 3.5 year duration) is marked by the measuring out of 2625 years, based on Daniel’s 2625 years (1290 + 1335) of chapter 12. The beginning of that 2625 years can be anywhere between 605 and 457 B.C., with its ending then between 2021 and 2169 CE. The 605 B.C. date measures from Jeremiah’s recording and making public his prophecies regarding Jerusalem, which laid the background for the seventy week prophecy. If one uses it, the 1290 years thus end at the start of the construction of the Dome of the Rock, an expanded veneration of this holy site, while the subsequent 1335 years takes us to 2021. The expectation for the fulness period for the Time of the End is not one of world-wide cataclysmic destruction too frequently associated with this era, but rather of events that affect a reconciliation between Jew, Muslim, and Christian, and renewed veneration for our common heritage and spiritual kinship. It is simply a transition period to a subsequent era of peace, spiritual growth, and accomplishment. After the ending of this, the third of these preparatory eras, there hopefully stretch long harvest years of spiritual maturity for the human race. The only source for this interpretation of which I am aware is the book Prophetic Eras. ref: Prophetic Eras, Arithmetic Patterns in an Ongoing Fulfillment of Prophecies attributed to Daniel, ISBN 978-0-9830739-0-1 /ref. (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Samdhatta

I have a problem with this sentence.[edit]

"It also supposes that the Babylonian empire was succeeded by a Median empire under "Darius the Mede", who, it is implied in Daniel 6:28, gave way to Cyrus the Persian, but no Darius is known to history and Cyrus the Great of Persia was the conqueror of Babylon (5 BCE)"

This may accurately reflect what the sources say, but the book of Daniel does not mention a "Median empire". In 9:1 it says "Darius, the son of Xerxes, a Mede by birth" and 5:31 say "Darius the Mede." This is simply stating his ancestry.

Nor does the book of Daniel say that Darius conquered Babylon. Rather it says in 9:1 that Darius was appointed king and in 5:31 that he took over the kingdom at age 62 (he was an old man). Those are hardly the terms one would use for a conquering king of some empire. It is well known that Cyrus the Great, who was king of both Media and of Persia, conquered Babylon. It does not conflict with this fact for Cyrus to have appointed someone in his stead for a time till he should want the throne in Babylon. And it is not shocking for that person to be otherwise unknown to history. So I suggest the following adjusted statement.

"It also supposes that "Darius the Mede" was appointed king in Babylon, who, it is implied in Daniel 6:28. gave way to Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians. Darius is otherwise unknown to history. Cyrus the Great was conqueror of Babylon (538 BCE)."

--RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about this in the literature. The important point is simply that Darius the Mede is unknown in history - no inscriptions, no mentions in Greek histories (Herodotus was very thorough). The only ones to mention him are obviously taking him from Daniel - that's Josephus and some later Christian-era rabbinical works. If you like you can just cut the sentence back to something like a king called Darius the Mede who is unknown to history - keep the ideas from the source that are least controversial. PiCo (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
To me, that Darius is unknown in history is nearly irrelevant because you have to take positions not found in the text to suppose that he would be found elsewhere. There is nothing that indicates that Darius was anything more than a member of Cyrus' army of Medians and Persians who earned the right to be appointed king of Babylon by Cyrus. The Greek 'histories' have been wrong before. Take for instance the Hittites, who were not mentioned in history (but for the Bible) until their cities and civilization were dug up from the ground just a century ago. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to try to excuse the book's historical accuracy, we just need to sketch the historical background to the 70 weeks prophecy. There are two elements that are essential, the in-story setting of the "1st year of Darius," and the author's setting of around 167-164 BC. That Darius is unknown to history is curious, and makes it rather hard to place Daniel 9 in real history, but the author apparently means the first year of or after the conquest of Babylon. As this was by Cyrus, not the other wise unknown Darius, that makes the unknown-ness of Darius material to us - we have to note that the author of Daniel apparently means the year of the fall of Babylon. (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The text does not say that Darius captured Babylon. It states that Darius was "appointed king" in chapter 9 and "took over" in chapter 5. But it says nothing about him capturing or conquering Babylon. Who had the power to appoint any king over Babylon? The real conqueror of Babylon--Cyrus? So to claim that the book of Daniel says an unknown Median king captured Babylon is a lie. And a lie supported by 'reliable sources' is still a lie.
Making a big deal out of Darius being "unknown" is a red herring. Everyone knows that Cyrus captured Babylon, and the text in Daniel does not contradict that point. Most everyone ASSUMES that Cyrus chose to become king of Babylon at the very time when he captured it. But there is no historical evidence stating exactly when Cyrus took the throne. It doesn't matter if it may seem logical that he would take it right away, but that is based on no evidence.
There is no attempt here to "excuse" the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. It is flawed assumptions and false conclusions that lead some to think that there are historical inaccuracies in the book. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus king of medes and persians[edit]

According to the Cyrus WP page Cyrus' regal titles in full were The Great King, King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, and King of the Four Corners of the World. His first conquest was to take the kingdom of the Medes under whom he first lived and to whom he was related. A large part of his army was made up of Medes. So to emphasize that Cyrus was JUST king of the Persians is painting a false picture. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How to approach the "later interpretations" section[edit]

(Just to clarify, "later" means later than the time the book was written - so it includes everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls up to the modern period).

I think we're going in the wrong direction by having subsections on Jehovah Witnesses, Adventists, etc. It leads to repetition. Better to look at it in terms of the questions that the text leaves open, and how these have been handled - often the answers have been identical across centuries.

The questions are of two broad types, the meaning of the chronology and the identity of the persons and events.

The big problem with the chronology is the start-date for the seventy weeks. The text is far from clear - it just says "from the time the word went out." There have been (and still are) many theories as to what that means,but no agreement. The suggestions have included: 605, the date of the battle of Carchemish; 597 or soon after, the date of Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in Babylon; 586, the date of the fall of Jerusalem; various suggested dates in the 400s when a Persian king wrote to allow Ezra or alternatively Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem (two different possible kings, several different possible dates).

The second problem with the chronology is that however you look at the start date, the 490 years runs out far too soon and the end of the world doesn't come. There have been several answers to this, as well.

The identity of persons and events is comparatively simpler. Christians universally take the "anointed one" to be Jesus. The "ruler to come" is normally taken to be the antichrist, though I think there are other candidates. Beyond that there's less agreement over things such as the abomination etc.

Anyway, I think it would be better to approach this part by subject rather than on the basis of JW, Adventists etc. Comments?PiCo (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are many interpretations of these texts. Froom documents hundreds of interpretations, but shows that over time, consensus grew on most points. Just because there are many different interpretations doesn't mean one needs to mention all of them, for many of them, such as by individual scholars, are of minority view. The historistical and dispensational interpretations are by far the most common interpretations across time, along the Catholic Futurism and Preterism. The SDA position is the culmination of the protestant historistical approach. Modern scholarship represent a minority viewpoint and as you said there is little consensus there. Even if there is consensus, they represent such a small group that due weight must be considered. Just because some idea is modern doesn't mean that it is any better or more important than previous ideas. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Modern scholarship has to be rendered according to WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: You mean this I think - I'll paste it here for reference:
  • In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
  • Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."
  • Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found in the Manual of Style.
The first bullet is obviously relevant to why we prioritise scholarship over belief - scholars explain how the beliefs developed (which is what the first section of the article is doing). The second and third demonstrate how religious beliefs such as those of Adventism should be written up ("Adventists and Witnesses believe X, while Catholics and Jews believe Y), plus some advice on using scholarly language. PiCo (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

490 years and the end of the world[edit]

The 490 years is not about the end of the world. look at verse 24 again.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,(KJV)
Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city(NIV)

The 490 years apply especially to the Jewish nation and Jerusalem.

to finish the transgression,(KJV)
to finish transgression,(NIV)

During this time the Jewish nation will fill up (finish) the cup of their iniquity (transgressions).

to make an end of sins,(KJV)
to put an end to sin [offerings],(NIV)

As the antitype of the typical sacrificial system, Jesus' death meant the end of that system. No more sin offerings were needed.

to make reconciliation for iniquity,(KJV)
to atone for wickedness,(NIV)

By his vicarious sacrifice on Calvary Jesus provided reconciliation for all sinners (the wicked) who accept his sacrifice.

to bring in everlasting righteousness,(KJV)
to bring in everlasting righteousness,(NIV)

By his life, death, and resurrection Jesus has made everlasting righteousness available to every man who, in simple faith, is willing to accept it.

to seal up the vision and prophecy,(KJV)
to seal up vision and prophecy(NIV)

The fulfilment of predicitions of the messiah at the time specified in the prophecies confirm (seal up) the prophecies as true.

and to anoint the most Holy.(KJV)
and to anoint the Most Holy Place.(NIV)

Moses was told in Ex 25:9 to make the tabernacle exactly like the pattern he was shown, because it served as a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.(Heb 8:5) Just as the Most Holy Place in Moses' tabernacle was anointed by sacrificial blood before it could be used, so too, Jesus blood anointed the heavenly Most Holy Place so it could be used in future judegment.

The 490 years cover the time from Daniel to the Messiah, not to the end of the world. Comments based on SDA Bible Commentary, a typical historistical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talkcontribs) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The 490years ends with the coming of the kingdom of God, which is what's meant by the "end of the world" (end of the ordinary world). Your interpretation is a Christian one - Daniel is a Jewish book, and the intention of the authors was within the context of Jewish history of the mid-2nd century. We need to cover 3 "meanings" in out article: that original meaning, the meaning it had to Jews and primitive Christians (who were Jews themselves), and the meanings it came to have for later Christianity, of whom Adventists are one group. Adventist interpretation needs to be covered, but it can't be preferenced. PiCo (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I just checked about 10 different translations and none of them say "end of the world." I even checked the original Hebrew. The texts do talk about an end, but in context, it is the end of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in war at the hands of the "Prince to come". It sounds like some modern scholar was lazy and made some wild assumptions. The visions of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11-12 are not about the Jewish people, but nations of the world. They talk about a judgment and end of the world with God setting up a final kingdom. In contrast the 70 weeks vision is about the Jewish people and nation. Its 'end' happened at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I sent you on a wild goose chase over this - I totally agree that Daniel isn't talking about the end of the world, just the end of history. His message is that ordinary history will come to an end and be replaced by the kingdom of God. But your analysis of the details is distinctively Christian. PiCo (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
With the Bible resources on-line now days it is not difficult to check many different translations and Hebrew-English interliner texts. BibleGateway gives one access to over 30 English translations and 50 or so translations into other languages. The BlueLetterBible links the KJV with Strongs Exhaustive Concordance and Hebrew/Greek Lexicons. Anyone who has the desire can easily learn much about any Bible text and words used in it. I believe that each individual can and should become very knowledgeable on the Bible without the need to depend upon anyone else to explain things to them. Study for yourself, don't depend upon anyone else to tell you truth. Jesus said that he would send the Spirit to teach each person all things. He DID NOT SAY go see what the priest says, go listen to the televangelist, go read the latest from Bible scholars. Read it for yourself under the guidance of the Spirit, i.e., God himself. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It is just that Wikipedia does not rely upon the Holy Spirit, it relies instead upon reliable sources, which are written by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian interpretations[edit]

When you talk about the Christian interpretations you need to cover Historicism (which is a method used from about 200 AD to the present), Preterism and Futurism invented by Jesuit priests of the Catholic Counter Reformation against the Historicist Protestant movement (they began in the 16th century and continue to the present in Catholic circles), and Dispensationalism which came into existence in Mid-19th century and is widely held by the evangelical and fundamentalist groups. While there are some surfacial similarities between these interpretation methods, there are major differences which make them very distinct from each other. The second sentence of the "Antiquity: reinterpretation....." paragraph confusingly lumps together ideas from these disparate groups. And the 3rd paragraph too. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find sources that analyse different forms of interpretation. The piece about preterism comes from a good source and is apparently trustworthy, but I think it seems he's only talking about the early stage, pre-medieval for sure, and perhaps even earlier than that. Do you know any encylopedia or similar article that gives an overview? PiCo (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably the best source for a history of prophetic interpretation is the 4 volume work by Froom entitled "The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers". It is certainly from the Christian perspective, but since belief in Biblical prophecy is a distinctive Christian thing what else can you expect. It is encyclopedic and very exhaustive, covering nearly every Jewish and Christian author from before Christ to the 19th century. I am certain you will wonder why you never read it before. The links to .pdf downloads of all 4 volumes are found at Prophetic Faith of our fathers.
If you have questions about Froom being accepted as a valid source read his wiki page. His page was mostly written by Taiwan boi who, as you can read on his User page, is a librarian scientist and professional editor and a WP editor since 2006, whose interest include ancient history, ancient civilization, the middle ages, religion, etc. Taiwan boi was complemented on his addition to the web page. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Much of the content under Seventh-Day Adventists reproduces what is already covered under the paragraph about the historical-messianic interpretation. Can someone with a good knowledge of SDA belief clean up that section to indicate only the differences to the historical-messianic interpretation already presented?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now done this myself. Most of the information in the SDA sub-section duplicated the other sub-section. The only part that was unique was about dates offered for the Neo-Babylonian period, which are not those generally given in secular sources. Focus on SDA views of those years is out of scope of the '70 weeks prophecy', which (even in the SDA view) begins later than the Neo-Babylonian period. If attention is also to be given to SDA dates for the Neo-Babylonian period, the mainstream view also needs to be more clearly stated.
I have also changed 'Modern interpretation' to 'Christian interpretations'. The article still seems very slanted toward Christian belief, with the entire 'History of interpretation' section dealing with Christian POV, whereas Jewish interpretations are relegated to 'background' information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The "historical-messianic interpretation" method is entirely undocumented. It needs to go. The historistical section is heavily Christian for two reasons. Christians make up the majority of those who use the method. The Jewish section has not yet been fully developed, more work needs to be done filling it out. And the method has been abandoned by the Jewish scholars in the modern era. I'll do some editing to reflect this..... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Different authors seem to come up with different lists of the types of interpretation. This book, The Word and the World, by Eugene Merrill and others, lists four types in its chapter on Daniel: amillenialism, postmillenialism, historical premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism (see page 413, or do a search for one of those four phrases). Unfortunately Merrill only lists the types and doesn't explain them.
On being Christian, the fact is that only Christians regard Daniel as a prophetic book - for Jews it's one of the Writings, and they concentrate on the stories in chapters 1-6, which they interpret as moral problems (like, should Daniel have been so kind to Nebuchadnezzar, the king who destroyed the Temple). They simply ignore chapters 7-12. So there's really nothing to say about Jewish interpretation except perhaps to make that point - a single sentence. (That's medieval and modern Judaism of course - up to about 100 CE the Jews regarded Daniel as a prophetic book.) PiCo (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
About Froom, I found vol.3 in google books - he's incredibly detailed, which would make him hard to use - all trees, when we need the forest. But I think he can be used provided we screen out his Adventist agenda. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably the most useful thing in Froom's book are his tables which show the positions of nearly every author from the 1st to the 19th centuries. The pages for the tables and in which volumes are noted in the "list of historicists...." that I just added. The tables can be found in the .pdf copes of the books that can be downloaded. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
@RoyBurtonson, you restored redundant duplicated material, yet you retained the material you claimed was 'undocumented'. I have therefore restored my edit, which retains the sources from your (reverted) version but without the duplication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
On broader consideration of the article, I have noticed that some views had been ignored/suppressed (Isaiah's reference to Cyrus as "anointed one", fall of Assyria in 609 BCE giving exactly 70 years, Hebrew punctutation of Daniel 9:25); this seems to have been done to lend greater veracity to the SDA view, but I haven't attempted to find out by whom or for how long this has been the case with the article. Further elaboration on the Hebrew text is still required, as indicated in inline comments within the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I have also restored the Jewish interpretation to the Interpretation section. Though Jews do not interpret the passage as prophetic (i.e. Daniel is part of the Writings), that does not mean they do not have an interpreation of the passage at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section about rebuilding from '535' (not consistent with secular sources) until 515 BCE, as this has no direct bearing on the SDA interpretation of the '70 weeks' prophecy. The starting point for the '70 weeks', as already indicated in the article is c. 458 BCE. Other SDA beliefs about Jeremiah's 70 years are out of scope. This also constitutes undue weight because other interpretations of the 70 years are not covered (nor should they be at this article).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As already noted in the beginning paragraph of the historicist section, historicist reject ALL modern scholarly interpretation, therefore historicist interpretation will have different starting and ending points for the 70 weeks and many other points of disagreement with the modern scholarship present at the beginning of the article. This section is about what historicist think, not about conforming their views to modern scholarship. The vision is about BOTH the Anointed One AND Jerusalem so it is not out of scope to have a paragraph dealing with the restoration and destruction of Jerusalem. This is not undue weight simply because this article is a work in progress and this particular section is being worked on while other sections have yet to be developed. This work has not yet addressed all of your concerns, but that does not mean that everything must developed all at once. There could be many paragraphs more that could be added just for the SDA position. And some things brought up by modern scholarship, historicists consider irrelevant. Let this section develop as it will..... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You're intermixing the '70 weeks' with Jeremiah's '70 years'. You've restored quite a lot of inferior content, including contradictory information as previously noted. The topic doesn't interest me enough to continue dealing with your poor quality reversions, so I'm just going to stop watching the article and let it remain poorly structured.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Some extra sources[edit]

This book Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction looks possibly useful. PiCo (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Also this one].PiCo (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation section is a mess[edit]

The Interpretation section is a mess, and I'm afraid I'm partly responsible for that. We all are. Anyway, some comments:

  • Identity of the messiah and the evil ruler: Jeffro, I'm sorry but I took out that comment about Isaiah recognising Cyrus as the messiah. He did, but it's not relevant to this article - we're looking at how post 2nd century authors interpreted the "anointed one" in Daniel 9 - always, without exception, as Jesus, so far as I know. Almost all see the evil ruler as the Antichrist, although that took a few centuries to develop, but after about the 3rd century it was always the Antichrist.
  • Historicist subsection: it makes a big point about believing the book of Daniel was written by Daniel or someone else in the 5th century. But absolutely all Christian interpreters believe that - it just takes a sentence to say it, not a whole subsection.
  • Chronology: Interpretations of the chronology are the main thing about the prophecy, and they're much more complicated than the article currently says. Daniel doesn't make clear when his start-point is, and it's been interpreted as anything from the beginning of the Babylonian empire to Artaxerxes' commission to Nehemiah - saying it's Artaxerxes' commission of Ezra is unbalanced.
  • Types of interpretation: I don't know about you, but I find all this talk of amillenialism and preteritism and so on just plain confusing.

I suggest an approach that follows a historical approach - begin with the 1st century CE (the earliest period for which there's evidence), deal very briefly with Judaism, then with primitive Christianity. hat should bring in the identification of the messiah as Jesus and the evil ruler as Antichrist. Then the rest concentrates on the chronology. That's my suggestion. (That table is just too much, by the way, tho I appreciate the thought; and I don't object to using Froom). PiCo (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, I am no longer watching this article, because the other editor (Ron whatever-his-name-is) just reverts to poor quality text, apparently with an SDA bias. I'm done here. Do with the article as you please.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Roy isn't operating in the same mental framework as you and me, he believes in the supernatural reality of prophecy. It makes it difficult for him to see what we're getting at. At the same time, I think he probably has just as much difficulty understanding us. Is this article worth putting time into? Probably not. Nor is anything else on wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem here, I believe, is that the viewpoint of you (PiCo and Jeffro) is that the Bible is not the word of God and there is no such thing as real prophecy, while that of myself and most Christians is that the Bible is the word of God and that prophecy is real. Obviously, these two views are mutually exclusive. I believe that PiCo is doing a commendable job putting together a comprehensive discussion of modern scholarship view of this topic. I understand what he is doing. At this time I am attempting to put down one of the Christian views (Historistical) of the text. I want work on others in the future. The thing that may irk you is that the Christian view pretty much ignores modern scholarship as irrelevant. To be comprehensive the article ought to take into account both viewpoints and present them as two distinct ways of thought without one or the other needed to comment about the truth or falseness of the other.
Just because you may not know the various interpretation methods and are confused by them, doesn't mean that they are unimportant. It just means your education is incomplete. And it illustrates the gulf that exists between modern scholarship and Christian Biblical scholarship. (Yes, I know there are some modern scholars who claim to be Christian.)
The small table I added illustrates the continuity of thought by Christian Bible scholars across a long period of time. I did not invent these understandings of prophecy. The SDAs did not invent them. They have been well established for a long time. I concur that a chronology of interpretive thought be shown. That is what I am working on. The Historicism interpretive method began before "primitive Christianity" (what a stupid label) and continues to the present. This methodology lead to the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church did not much like being identified as the Anti-Christ so it started a new order of priesthood (Jesuit) in the 16th Century specifically to deal with the Protestants. They came up with two competing but successful interpretive methods Preterist and Futurist. Then during the 19th century Dispensationalism was developed. All of these exist in the present, held by different groups. These interpretive methods have been known and discussed for centuries among Christian scholars. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
"Yes, I know there are some modern scholars who claim to be Christian." Telling and hilarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly interpretation in the lede[edit]

Hi there. Some of you I know and most of you I don't. If we stick to policy we can all get along and make the page better. I like to improve leads. This lead says...

'The "seventy weeks" prophecy is cited as an example of how some scholars believe apocalyptic authors of the Hellenistic age reinterpreted the prophets (in this case, Jeremiah) in the light of their own circumstances.[3]'

This looks like valuable information, since it's a notable point of view. Can we please rework this sentence into something more direct and specific? Does someone have access to the source? Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Respecting the Rich History of Interpretation Associated with This Prophecy[edit]

Hello everyone. I propose that those of us who contribute to this page respect the rich history of interpretation associated with this prophecy by noting/cataloging the various ways exegetes have handled it without necessarily casting judgment on those approaches. Obviously, a number of different types of people (religious and secular) have strong views as to how this prophecy should be interpreted and I think this page will continue to be mired in conflict so long as those who work on it see it as an opportunity to advance their own preferred interpretation at the expense of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewSaadia (talkcontribs) 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV and WP:ABIAS. In respect to historical events, mainstream historians make the call, this belongs to the basics of editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This is what I am talking about. Anyone who is familiar with the professional literature on this subject would know that there is very little consensus among "mainstream historians" about this prophecy. Indeed, there is practically none, which is why almost everything is up for grabs here. For example, I see that you, Tgeorgescu, reverted my change to the opening words of this page so that it currently suggests that the seventy weeks prophecy is a further development (or reinterpretation) of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy, but this is by no means the consensus of "mainstream historians"; rather, it is merely the opinion/judgment of Collins and a few others. Indeed, I can cite at least two other scholars who have recently published articles on just this subject in such mainstream journals as CBQ and JAJ that hold to a different view as to how these prophecies relate to each other. On the other hand, the change I proposed to the opening words of this page said nothing so controversial as this. TheNewSaadia (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Including religious interpretation is fine, but such interpretation should not be confused with secular academic textual history (which is what the lede currently discusses). Not everyone accepts that the material is a divine prophecy to be interpreted, but anyone can accept that the work is a textual artifact that can be examined as a historical document. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, let's discuss the lead that everyone wants to preserve.
Currently, the lead says that "the majority [of critical] scholars" do not take the exilic setting of the Book of Daniel at face value. In my opinion, this sort of statement, although uncontroversial, is more appropriate to a discussion of the historical provenance of the Book of Daniel than the lead for an entry on the seventy weeks prophecy. The subject matter of this page is not the historical provenance of the Book of Daniel, but the seventy weeks prophecy (its literary characteristics, history of interpretation, and so on).
The next sentence suggests that the seventy weeks prophecy is a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy. Unfortunately, this is not obvious from the literary context in Dan 9 and is disputed in the professional literature. So, again, how does a controversial statement like this help introduce the seventy weeks prophecy to people who visit this page?
Also, I am under the impression that some of the people who closely follow this page are under the delusion that there is a determinate fact of the matter about what "mainstream historians" have concluded about this prophecy. However, as someone who is thoroughly well-versed in this literature, I can assure all of you that there is no such historical consensus about this prophecy, period. The only thing critical scholars agree on is that Dan 9:24-27 somehow speaks to the Maccabean crisis and that's it. This is why I propose that we take a more literary approach to this prophecy in this page and not get bogged down in apologetically driven rabbit trails about who is right/wrong and what is/isn't historical, etc. TheNewSaadia (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Final revert warning, go through consensus first. Anyone reverts again will be reported for violating WP:3RR -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:LEDE the lead section summarizes the content (body) of the article. So, you cannot summarily change the lead section without radically changing the whole body of the article. First work below the lead section and if those changes are to stay, then they may be summarized in the lead section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)All Wikipedia does is summarize reliable sources, without elaboration or interpretation. We do not use original research. We do not care about editor's opinions, or what they've studied (unless they can cite the books they've studied, again without elaboration or interpretation). The introduction is supposed to summarize and introduce the article. The current introduction's first paragraph introduces the subject matter, the next paragraph succinctly summarizes the background section.
Interpretations beyond how secular academia places the work in history, especially religious interpretations, belong in the Interpretation section. How historians fit the work within history (textual history) is not the same thing as religious interpretation, however. I repeat, textual history is not the same as religious doctrine. You seem to have the two confused.
The material about the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks connection to Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years is further discussed in the section Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years and Daniel's seventy weeks of years. The lede is merely summarizing that portion of the article, which is supported by several academic sources.
If you have complaints about the words "majority of scholars," you need to demonstrate that the source does not support the statement by either showing that the text itself does not say that, or present additional reliable sources that explicitly counter that specific source. Seeing how the article's text is a rather close paraphrase of the source, the first option is not possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, then the problem is that this whole page is misconceived. Much of what's written in the "Background" section is no less speculative than what we find in the "Interpretation" section. Indeed, much of what's written in the "Background" section heavily favors only one strand of historical-critical scholarship on this passage while completely ignoring the others that have appeared in the professional literature as well. Again, this is why I propose taking a more literary (or post-modern) approach to this passage that avoids absolute judgments of value and/or historicity. TheNewSaadia (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the material in the background section is reliably sourced to secular academic works. If you want to engage in original research, write for a blog or scholarly journal. If you want to edit here, you summarize reliable sources without elaboration, alteration, interpretation, extrapolation, or addition; and that's it. You've barely cited any sources in your edits or this discussion. Catholic Bible Quarterly would be completely appropriate for the Interpretation section, but it is not the same as textual history as determined by scholars whose entire careers are examining how works fit into history. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, you have just revealed that you have no idea what you are talking about. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ) is one of the most respected critical peer-reviewed journals and is second only to the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) in the field of biblical criticism. An example of a non-critical journal would be something like the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) or Tyndale Bulletin (TynBul). According to your logic, it is a mistake for this page to cite Collins as a source in the "Background" section since he was employed at Notre Dame (a Catholic university!) when he did most of his work on the Book of Daniel. TheNewSaadia (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


It's a theological journal, not a historical one. That's the issue. Please learn the difference between theology and history. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, only a person who has never read the CBQ could, with a straight face, cite a very brief wiki entry and conclude that the CBQ is a "theological" journal and not a "historical" one. This tells me that you know very little about the academic world of professional biblical criticism. Yes, there is some (gasp!) theology in the CBQ, but it's no more than what you'll find in all the other historical-critical journals (JAJ, JSJ, JJS, JSOT, SJOT, JHS, JSP, and so on). These ancient religious texts raise a host of historical, literary, philological, archaeological, theological, rhetorical, sociological, philosophical, and political questions that cannot always be neatly segregated from one another in different journals, whose contributors are exclusively specialized in each of these separate areas of expertise. TheNewSaadia (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, are you going to cite specific sources or not? This is not a forum for you to insult people on, this page is for collaborative article improvement. Cite appropriate reliable sources or leave the page alone. It's real simple, all you have to do is find source (preferably more), summarize it without any addition, alteration, interpretation, etc; and list the information such as the title, author, editor, publisher, volume/issue number (if any), year published, and page numbers. That's something that one should be expected to know how to do by the end of their freshman year of college (if not before).
The Catholic Biblical Association, the group that publishes CBQ, says that their purpose is theological, not historical. They're not a historical journal that features theology, they're a theological journal that sometimes discusses history when it suits them. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, I am prepared to take the time to substantively contribute to this page with reputable scholarly sources. But I am not in a position to educate people like yourself, who don't actually read publications like the CBQ, as to what's historical-critical and what's not. I am perfectly willing to collaborate with reasonable people who are actually familiar with the relevant subject matter to improve this page, but rank amateurs are another matter. TheNewSaadia (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You say that, and yet all you do is engage in name calling. Saying you have expertise or access to sources means nothing, what matters is actually citing sources. As this is a volunteer project that rejects original research, amateurs who are willing to stick to sources and policies are better able to contribute than self-appointed experts who seem to think that insults trump actual bloody citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, care to explain how I was creating a false balance in my most recent attempt at editing this page? TheNewSaadia (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


You changed "the visions in the second half were composed by unknown authors during the 2nd century in response to the Maccabean crisis" to "the visions in the second half were probably composed around the time of the Maccabean crisis in the second century BCE." The first is definite, and firmly supported by the source. Your revision is on par with "John F Kennedy may have been assassinated at some point in the 20th century." It is there to create a degree of doubt that does not exist, to give more credibility to the prospect that it was written earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, to say that something is "probably" true in this field is to make a rather strong statement, since there's almost nothing we know with absolute certainty about these ancient texts. Again, the real problem here is that you're trying to police this page in your capacity as a rank amateur. TheNewSaadia (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"Probably" still implies a degree of uncertainty that is not present in the source. Do you have anything positive to contribute, or are you only capable of name calling? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Because there is some uncertainty as to when the Book of Daniel was put together. For all we know, the Book of Daniel might not have come together in its final form until sometime after the Maccabean crisis, hence my preference for saying that chapters 7-12 were "probably" composed "around" the time of the Maccabean crisis. This statement is well-supported by the source and is more likely to be true than the one you want to preserve. Your desire to word the sentence in such a way as to remove any possible opportunity for a certain type of person to misunderstand it reflects an agenda of some kind that is not appropriate to this page. TheNewSaadia (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
How many times does "no original research" need to be explained? If its not supported by a source, it doesn't go in an article. The source cited supports the more exact statement that it was composed in the Maccabean era (not before, but during), that it was assembled afterward, and that it is to be understood "as a witness to the religiosity of the time." It more firmly supports the statement that it was written during and after the Maccabean era than it does before, which "around" implies. The source says this with a degree of certainty that goes beyond "probably." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, in this context "around" means "during" or "shortly thereafter." Again, I am having a hard time understanding why you are so paranoid about the possibility that someone might misunderstand this to mean that the Book of Daniel might have been composed "before" the Maccabean era. In any case, there's no "original research" being done here, the statement I've been trying to make is well-supported by the source. TheNewSaadia (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In the rest of the English language, "around" can mean "before, during or after." I'm having a hard time understanding why you're fine with text you acknowledge could very well lead someone to misunderstand the material. Given the choice between people clearly understanding something, or people misunderstanding something, who would choose the latter unless they wanted that misunderstanding to happen? As I pretty much said earlier, your revision is akin to "John F Kennedy was probably assassinated at some point in the 20th century." Yes, a source that gives a more specific timeframe would support that, but not as well as "John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963" or even "JFK was assassinated in the early 1960s."
Given your prior comments in this thread about wishing to give the religious historical claims more precedence, and your regular calling to theological journals (without actually ever citing them) as equivalent to sources by historians, is there any reason why I should not worry that you're attempting to push a traditional and non-critical narrative into the article at the expense of what secular academia has found? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I favor a more post-modern, literary approach to this prophecy. In any case, you're only embarrassing yourself by continuing to pretend that the CBQ is not a reliable source of historical-critical scholarship. Again, by your logic, there's isn't a peer-reviewed journal we can trust since they all publish articles that don't fit the historical-critical model. Even the leading journal in the field of biblical criticism (along with the CBQ, I might add) publishes articles on feminist criticism, post-colonial criticism, liberation theology, etc. TheNewSaadia (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Don't put words in my mouth, and quit being so pretentious and arrogant. Religious interpretations belong in the interpretation section, the background section is for secular history of the text. It's really simple. Wikipedia does not give equal validity to legends and history. If a religious claim says one thing and secular academia another, Wikipedia will only present the religious claim as a belief, not as equally valid to the historical-critical 'interpretation.' You cannot change that.
This is really simple: if you want to add something, you need to summarize and cite an appropriate reliable source. If you want to change something, you need to demonstrate that the change better matches the cited source. If you want to remove something, you need to demonstrate that the source is unreliable or that more sources specifically counter the source than support it.
If a source states something definitely, we state it definitely. We do not soften it for the benefit of those who disagree. We do not give equal or additional weight to positions that are not supported secular academia.
If you're here to "right great wrongs" against non-critical religious narratives, treat non-critical religious narratives as equivalent to academic history, use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy for non-critical religious narratives, or are otherwise not here to simply summarize reliable sources, you are not welcome here. If you are here to try to intellectually bully others, you are not welcome here. Those links in my text are to important policies and guidelines, so it's not me that's saying this, it's the community.
I've tried repeatedly to kindly explain things to you, but because the things I'm telling you mean you don't get to push your little agenda, you insult me. Real mature on your part. I will be treating the rest of your edits as clear POV-pushing from now on. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Censorship by TheNewSaadia[edit]

User:TheNewSaadia recently censored material that doesn't fit within the non-critical POV he's dedicated to pushing. So there's actual discussion, does anyone besides him support removing the material? It is, as with prior objected use of this source a rather close paraphrase. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian, I see that in addition to being a paranoid amateur who hasn't read the professional literature you are also a liar. As anyone can see on this talk page, or in my contributions to the entry (attempted or otherwise), I am not pushing anything like a "non-critical POV" (maybe a post-modern one, but not a non-critical one). My specific objection to the parenthetical statement under discussion is that it was "gratuitous" (see my comments in the view history). More specifically, there is just no point in referring to scholarly speculation about Dan 1:1ff in an entry for a prophecy that shows up in Dan 9. This sort of thing would be more appropriate to the section "Induction into Babylon" in Daniel, I would have no problem with someone placing it there. In any case, referring to this specific attempt at editing this page as an act of "censorship" is too ridiculous to even take seriously. TheNewSaadia (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, the real problem here is that we have self-appointed guardians of mainstream academic scholarship, like Ian, who've never actually read the scholarship and don't know how to think through the relevant issues (hence the paranoia). TheNewSaadia (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Edits are being done without any general agreement in these discussions. As of right now, no more edits are to be done on the article. I will either view these edits myself or suggest them to an administrator or the Wikiprojects that this article falls under. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@TheNewSaadia, I just viewed the URL, and the information provided does not state either a majority or minority view of the content by Brian E. per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, the site is in question as reliable or trusted website? Secondary sources are also required to verify reliability. Therefore, the edits made are to be considered a violation of WP:NPOV. Any attempt to revert or restore the edits are to be undone and to be reported to an administrator. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII, The URL was a link to an online version of the article hosted by JSOT's publisher, SAGE, and should be considered reliable/trusted. Except for the first page, most of the article was behind a paywall. In general, only people with access to an institutional subscription to such journals can read them online.
Your argument seems to be that my peer-reviewed journal reference was not a reliable secondary source since it did not situate Colless's view on Darius the Mede within a broader survey that identified the relevant majority/minority viewpoints, but this is mistaken. According to the section titled "Humanities and history" in the entry on secondary sources, "In the humanities, a peer reviewed article is always a secondary source." The standards for what counts as a secondary source are different for "Science, technology, and medicine" than they are for the humanities and history (again, I invite you to compare and contrast the relevant sections in the entry on secondary sources). In the former case, it is true that original research articles are typically identified as primary sources while review articles and meta-analyses are secondary sources, which is what you seem to have in mind in the above comment, but this is not the case for the humanities and history. In the relevant field of biblical criticism, primary sources would be things like references to biblical/apocryphal texts, DSS fragments, other Second Temple era pseudepigrapha, etc. while secondary sources would include things like peer-reviewed journal articles, contributions to edited volumes, scholarly books and commentaries, etc. TheNewSaadia (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII, by the way, there should be nothing controversial in recording the findings published in reliable secondary sources according to the standards of "Humanities and history," which includes those found in peer-reviewed journals such as JSOT. Again, much of what's written in sec. 2.3 and 2.4 is supported by nothing else than what Collins has to say in his 1998 introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature, who also does not go through of trouble of recording the plethora of majority/minority viewpoints concerning the various elements of the prophecy that he remarks on there. So, if my use of Colless's work in sec. 2.2 is inappropriate then the same must also be said for many of the claims recorded in sec. 2.3 and 2.4 (i.e., that they are inappropriate as well). TheNewSaadia (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
TheNewSaadia, your latest post is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. I'm filing my report to the admins alongside this post. The problem is that you arrogantly think you have some sort of authority that trumps consensus and policy, that you don't need to actually learn how things work here, that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. That sort of behavior is not welcome here. Multiple users have politely explained to you in a variety of ways how things are done here, and you ignore anything that doesn't suit you and throw mean-spirited tantrums when things don't go your way. You have called for the article to place religious interpretation and secular academic history next to each other as alternatives "without necessarily casting judgement," and then replaced, neutered, or removed material that clashes with non-critical traditions. You intentionally tried to use language that you admitted could mislead people into thinking that the prophecies in Daniel were written before the Maccabean era. If you're not pushing a non-critical POV, you're doing a terrible job of it.
The prophecies are featured as part of a narrative that sets itself in a specific point in history, and so the information is relevant for context. Even though the authors of the prophecies were writing in a later period and adding them to the earlier chapters, that they did so obviously indicates some intention to connect it to the earlier chapters. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, I am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. I am somewhat accustomed to the bloodsport that is modern academic culture in some Humanities disciplines in North America (see, e.g., this) and treated you rudely. Modern academic culture in some Humanities disciplines is not for the faint of heart, and it has negatively affected me in various ways. Regardless, from now on I will conduct myself more civilly on Wikipedia. TheNewSaadia (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New Ideas for This Page[edit]

I would like to propose some new ideas for this page to those who follow it closely. My hope is that by stating them here explicitly, people understand where I am coming from in editing this page. At this point, my desire is not to fundamentally change this change, but to improve it within the confines of how it's currently setup.

First of all, before the section titled "Structure" I would like to create a new section titled "English Translation," in which the prophecy is given according to the NRSV (the preferred modern English version among the scholarly community). The seventy weeks prophecy is not a very long prophecy, so this section would be rather short. Currently, the only translation found on this page is that of the dated ASV in the "Structure" section, which I think is too archaic to be the only translation of this prophecy found on this page.

Secondly, I would also like to rename some of the sections on this page to more accurately reflect their contents. In particular, I would like to change "Structure" to "Literary Structure," "Background" to "Historical Background and Interpretation," and "Interpretation" to "Theological Reception." For what it's worth, none of these suggested changes strike me as particularly controversial.

Thirdly, I would like add (not delete) to sections 2.3 and 2.4 the views of other scholars found in the professional historical-critical secondary literature. Too much of the content in these sections is simply a verbatim copy of what Collins has to say about this prophecy in his 1998 introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature. In my opinion, it is not fair to exclude other similarly qualified/published historical-critical scholars who have different views from that of Collins vis-a-vis certain elements of this prophecy. By including these other scholarly voices, this page will be both more informative and accurately reflect the current state of the scholarly discussion.

If anyone has questions/concerns about these changes I would be happy to amicably discuss them here. TheNewSaadia (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the acrimony visible on this talk page, I think some good ideas were suggested here. It makes sense to have a translation of the seventy weeks prophecy in the article, and the NRSV is the most commonly used modern translation in the peer-reviewed secondary literature. Also, it makes sense to categorize some of the ways this prophecy has been interpreted theologically by various groups under the heading "Theological Reception," with analysis found in reliable sources (relative to the field of biblical criticism) categorized under the heading, "Historical-Critical Analysis." Seeing as how no one has objected to these ideas since the time they were initially proposed over a year ago, I take it that they are acceptable to other editors monitoring this entry. NeoRambam (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Carol Marie's "Literal-Day View"[edit]

Carol, I am very sorry about this, but I am afraid that PiCo's suspicions are correct and that the subsection currently devoted to your "literal-day view" is not supported by a reliable source relative to the standards for a humanities discipline like biblical criticism. As already stated above on this talk page, reliable secondary sources for the field of biblical criticism would be things like peer-reviewed journal articles, contributions to volumes edited by other scholars, books and commentaries authored by established scholars, etc. In principle, I have no objection to the page listing "Other Interpretations" like yours so long as they are supported by a reliable source of some kind. If, for example, you were to go through the effort of advancing your interpretation in the context of a peer-reviewed journal article, then I would have problem with including it in the article mainspace. I hope you understand that it is simply not practical to list all the different theories that have been advanced concerning this prophecy as found in self-published books, archived sermons on church websites, etc. that do not meet the above standard.

As a compromise to you, though, I will add an external link to the Amazon page through which interested readers can learn about your book. TheNewSaadia (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the References Section[edit]

I've noticed that some of the sources listed in the Bibliography subsection are not actually being referred to in the entry, which is problematic since it is the purpose of a bibliography to list the works referred to in a text. Consequently, I propose that those works in the current Bibliography subsection that are not actually being referred to in the entry be listed in a new "Further reading" section for ambitious readers to explore as in other pages. If anyone has an objection to this idea please let me know on this talk page. NeoRambam (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Identifying Reliable Secondary Sources for the Discipline of Biblical Studies[edit]

I see that there has been some controversy on this talk page as to which secondary sources are, in fact, reliable sources for the discipline of biblical studies. However, this does not need to be a point of controversy among editors. The Society of Biblical Literature (or SBL for short)—the oldest society of scholars devoted to the critical investigation of the Bible, whose very mission is to foster biblical scholarship—has published a pair of tables in their SBL Handbook of Style (SBLHS) that extensively list all the peer-reviewed journals, major reference works, and scholarly series that they recognize as secondary sources for the discipline of biblical studies (i.e., see the pair of tables in SBLHS 8.4.1–2). I would say that any scholarly source found on this list can be safely regarded as a reliable secondary source for the discipline of biblical studies, clearing up much of the confusion on this point. NeoRambam (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More proposed changes[edit]

I would like to organize the existing material in the Historicism subsection into two further (very short) subsections devoted to the SDA and JW historicist interpretations. Also, I would like to organize the existing material in the Futurism and Dispensationalism sections into a pair of relatively short subsections devoted to "Premillennial Dispensationalism" and so-called "Historic Dispensationalism." I think these minor organizational changes will help make this material more intelligible for readers, but if anyone has an objection to this idea please let me know on this talk page.

Secondly, I′ve noticed that the items in the appendices are not actually being referred to in the article mainspace. Moreover, the information in Appendix 1 concerning the different positions that various ancient, medieval, and early modern commentators have taken concerning this prophecy are dubiously sourced to an SDA publication written by an SDA minister; ideally, I would prefer to see this sort of thing supported by more reliable secondary sources by scholars who specialize in the field of historical theology. Also, much of the information in Appendix 2 can already be found in the article mainspace and is redundant to the page. Hence, for all these reasons, I am inclined to simply excise these appendices, but (once again) if anyone has a strong desire to keep them please let me know on this talk page. NeoRambam (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Froom's works have been vetted and found scholarly. Read the sections dealing with his book on his wikipedia page. His books remains the most comprehensive work on the topic. He was a historian first and a minister second. --MindyWaters (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Even so, the appendix whose information was supported by his work was not being used in the article mainspace, so there was no need for it. Regardless, I am increasingly inclined to think that a summary of the different positions that various commentators (antique, medieval, and modern) have taken concerning the seventy weeks prophecy is an article all its own, because of the sheer volume of commentary that would need to be summarized (and perhaps also contextualized) for such a project to be done properly. NeoRambam (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Historicism has been held pretty much the same from antique through Medieval through modern times. (There were a few outliers at first.) It's not until you get to the Counter-Reformation that you begin to get large promotion of Futurism and Preterism (both of which were invented and designed by Jesuits as a specific challenge to protestant Historicism). Its interesting the Catholic Futurism and Modern Critical Scholarship find their basis in Porphyry a pagan philosopher who railed against Christianity and especially against Bible prophecy in the 4th century. I don't find it at all curious that John J. Collins, as a Catholic, promotes Modern Scholarship and Futurism. Its what I'd expect.
Whenever you take on any part of the topic of Bible prophecy you can expect that it is a huge undertaking, because there is nothing simple about it. One might limit oneself to just a single viewpoint, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. You have to have a NPOV, and to do that with Bible prophecy you have to discuss just about every aspect of it. --MindyWaters (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement, that's why I think it's good and necessary for the article to have a section devoted to messianic readings that see this text as a future prophecy concerning the coming of Christ. It would not be consistent with WP's NPOV policies to only have non-messianic readings represented in the article mainspace. NeoRambam (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Rethinking the Theological reception section[edit]

Despite my best efforts, I am afraid that the material currently constituting the Theological reception section still feels rather weak to me. Part of the problem is that there is too rich a history of theological appropriation of the seventy weeks prophecy to be neatly summarized in anything like a readable manner. A number of different groups, theologians, and other ancient commentators have their own elaborate theories as to what this prophecy means to them; and while this rich history of theological speculation is interesting to some, it cannot be succinctly summarized and is probably worthy of a separate article all its own.

Hence, I propose that the Theological reception section be rechristened as a "Messianic readings" section (pun intended), in which some of the main lines of messianic interpretation for this prophecy are described. I believe there is enough raw material in the current Theological reception section to make for a decent "Messianic readings" section without having to add new references. However, if anyone has a concern with this idea please let me know so that we can discuss it on this talk page. NeoRambam (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Theological Reception is a pretty lame title. I'd prefer something along the line of "Christain interpretations". --MindyWaters (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings MindyWaters! The problem with the title, "Christian interpretations," is that many Christian scholars (along with some early church fathers) read the seventy weeks prophecy in the context of the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV in the second century BCE and don't opt for a messianic reading that sees fulfillment in the first half of the first century CE. For example, one of the leading historical-critical Daniel scholars, John J. Collins, is both Roman Catholic and editor of the Catholic Study Bible while employed as Professor of Old Testament at a Divinity School. So, whether some scholar (or ancient commentator of note) is a Christian or not doesn't determine how they read this prophecy.
In any case, what do you think of my idea of a "Messianic readings" section that would be exclusively devoted to those who read this prophecy along messianic lines? As it stands, I think there's too much overlap between the different subsections that constitute the Theological reception section. For example, they all see the seventy weeks timeline as beginning sometime in the middle of the fifth century BCE; the two "anointed ones" (along with the "prince who is to come") are all identified with Christ; the reference to an "anointed one" who is "cut off" is fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ; and so on. It seems to me that the different messianic readings only quibble over certain details about the seventy weeks timeline and whether the prophecy remains to be fulfilled in the future or was completely fulfilled in the first century CE. NeoRambam (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that many who hold to the traditional Protestant interpretation of Daniel 9 would consider themselves Messianic. The issue of the interpretation of the Book of Daniel is extremely complex, because on one hand you have the traditional Protestant interpretation, then the Catholic counter-reformation interpretations of Futurism and Preterism (both of which had a few early Christian fathers promoting some of those ideas). Then you have the rise of Evangelical Dispensationalism, which is a combination of Futurism and Preterism. Then you have modern scholarship which follows the line of Futurism. With the concentration on modern scholarship in Wikipedia, the huge and rich fabric of the history of this topic is missing and the public only gets a single viewpoint. It's as if only modern ideas are important, when they might actually be superfluous. I recommend that you read all four volumes of Froom's books. They are free on-line. That will give you an idea of the complexity of the issue.
Perhaps grouping all of the interpretations other than modern scholarship under one label is the problem. Perhaps they should be separate: Historicist Protestant, Catholic Counter-Reformation Futurism and Preterism, then Evangelical Dispensationalism, and Modern Critical scholarship. (There is also another form called Idealsim held by a minority) The thing about the Historicist interpretation is that it was held by a vast majority of Bible scholars from the first centuries to the 19th century. Catholic Counter-Reformation schools of thought start in the 16th century. And Evangelical dispensationalism started in the 19th century. Modern Critical thought also began during the 19th century. So which is the most important, that which as been around the longest, or the latest modern ideas. --MindyWaters (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... The way I see it, all these different groups you listed are reading this text as a future prophecy about the Messiah/Christ (i.e. one who is anointed by God to bring salvation for the people of God), which means that they are all reading it the same way—that is, as a messianic prophecy (even if they wouldn't identify themselves by the label "messianic," as you point out).
Also, I am in complete agreement that the history of interpretation concerning this prophecy is as huge as it is rich, but that indicates to me that summarizing this history requires an article of its own. Faithfully telling that story is very difficult, but briefly summarizing the main lines of messianic interpretation that these groups have adopted should be much easier, I think.
Finally, the prominence of the modern academic historical-critical perspective in the article mainspace can be justified on the grounds that WP has an explicit academic bias. As I understand it, WP doesn't consider the views of other groups as being on par with that of mainstream academic scholarship. NeoRambam (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Which makes Wikipedia EXTREMELY POV! And almost all wiki-editors POV blind. Because, Academic bias IS BIAS. Personally, I have no problem is being academic or highly educated, I am myself, but there are some topics whose truth cannot be determined by academia, and the Bible and Religion are two of them. Belief in God and the Bible does not depend upon being highly or poorly educated. But if you listen to most academics, being educated means you cannot believe in God or the Bible. I disagree. I think dependence on Academic bias is Wikipedia's GREATEST failure and fault. An encyclopedia is encyclopedic. By limiting to only Academic bias means that Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. Which is too bad. But nobody is likely to listen to me.
I still think dividing it into several heading based on types of interpretation would be best. --MindyWaters (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
But isn't it true that all these groups read the seventy weeks prophecy very similarly? Don't they all see the two "anointed ones" and the "prince who is to come" in vv. 25-26 as being one and the same person in the coming Christ? And isn't it also the case that they all see the seventy weeks timeline as beginning with either the decree given to Ezra or the warrant given to Nehemiah by the same Persian king (i.e. Artaxerxes I)? Granted, various SDA scholars argue that the decree given to Ezra should be dated to 457 BCE, while others date it to 458 BCE (and I believe the JWs have their own view of when Artaxerxes I gave Nehemiah permission to rebuild Jerusalem that's different from the dispensationalists), but do these differences really warrant separate subsections? I just don't think so, because they look like very minor differences to me. Now these minor differences are situated within very different eschatological systems of thought, but the article under discussion isn't devoted to the different eschatological systems of thought represented in all these different groups. All that matters with respect to the article is how they read the prophecy, and not their many eschatological differences. NeoRambam (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
SDAs do not see the the "anointed one" and the "prince to come" as the same person. The anointed one in Jesus. The "Prince to come" is the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem. This is completely different from all other interpretations. The difference between start times is also very significant. These points might seem minor to some, but not to the proponents of the different views. How one reads the prophecies is highly bound up in ones eschatological differences from others. It is impossible to separate them. --MindyWaters (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether right or wrong, WP is what it is. And if editors deviate from WP norms and policies then they run the risk of all their hard work being undone/reverted by editors who have a mind to enforce them. The way I see it, there's no point putting a lot of time into WP unless you are willing to abide by those norms and policies. NeoRambam (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Futurism has to do with placing the fulfillment of all of Daniels prophecies, including chapter 9, into the future of the present day (i.e. our day) and not to the future of Daniel. So one needs to be careful how ones uses the term future. --MindyWaters (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. NeoRambam (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I come to this as something of an outsider, since modern apocalypticism is well outside my own field of knowledge and experience. So just a few comments from the point of view of a curious non-expert coming to WIkipedia for a broad introduction to the subject of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy:
The section is titled "Eschatology", which it is, but it's strictly modern readings. There were 2000 years of explanations before that. None the less, I think this is excusable - who really wants to know what the early church fathers had to say on this? But I'd just add the word "modern" to the title.
The first sentence says there are four major approaches, and names them. It seems well sourced, so that's good, but the rest of the the section only mentions three - no "idealism".
Historicism is called "Christian" historicism - not mentioned in the intro sentence, and does it imply that the other three are not Christian, or that there's a non-Christian historicism? I'd stick with just "Historicism".
Under Historicism there are two religious movements specified - the only two mentioned in the whole section. I think it's good that they should be mentioned, but it seems odd that nobody else is noted. (What about the Catholic church, does it have a view? Orthodoxy?)
All sub-sections tell me (the reader) the various ways the various time-frames in the prophecy are interpreted. Can these be combined into a table? That might make it easier to comprehend.
I don't plan to edit this myself as it's something I know nothing about - and, frankly, I don't much care. But overall it's a good article and I'd like to see this part good too. Maybe a Good Article at the end?PiCo (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings PiCo! I completely share your concerns, which is why I would like to reimagine the section as a "Messianic readings" section (or something else similarly named), since what really sets these readings apart from the historical-critical readings is that they see the relevant text as a messianic prophecy that was at least partially fulfilled in the first century CE and not as an ex eventu prophecy whose Sitz im Leben is the Antiochene crisis in the second century BCE. There's only a handful of exegetical moves that these readings typically make, and they can be neatly summarized for readers.
The problem with organizing these readings by theological group while providing some of the relevant eschatological context for each group—which is the approach that MindyWaters remains committed to, apparently—is that it requires a tremendous amount of work to properly source the views of all these groups with appropriate context. Ideally, this section would not only list the Seventh-day Adventist and Dispensational views of current and/or former editors, but would also list ancient Jewish and Christian readings, along with late antique, medieval, reformation, and post-reformation readings by group. However, in my opinion at least, it's very unlikely that this page will attract editors who can realize this vision for the article, hence my desire to rethink this section along more simplified lines.
Personally, I think that so long as sec. 5 is organized in the way that it is, it will almost certainly remain at lower quality than the rest of the article, which I also think is unfortunate since the rest of the article mainspace is coming together very nicely (in my opinion, at least). NeoRambam (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition to PiCo's comments, I would also like to point out that the only major difference between the Seventh-day Adventist reading and the Preterist reading is a single year's shift in the chronological understanding of the seventy weeks timeline. I just don't understand why sec. 5. needs to be organized by theological group when there is so much repetition in how the different groups read this text.
My guess is that editors like MindyWaters think that separate subsections are needed by group on account of the various theological differences that obtain between these groups—for example, although Seventh-day Adventists and Protestant Preterists may read this text very similarly, their eschatological views differ in other ways, hence the need for separate subsections since they may get to the same place in reading this text for different reasons. However, I believe this line of reasoning is mistaken since the article mainspace isn't about these sorts of eschatological and/or hermeneutical differences. NeoRambam (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2016
While there may be some similarities between groups on this or that prophecy of Daniel, it is the overall interpretations of the prophecies in Daniel that make the difference. All the articles on the prophecies of Daniel ought to have a similar format so that the differences in the views can be seen while reading the various articles. --MindyWaters (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is indeed a non-christian Historicism. Just enter it into search and you can see. However, in the context I can see that the adjective Christain isn't needed here. Catholicism has two methodologies of interpretation which it developed in response to the Reformation, Preterism and Futurism. Protestantism used to be historicist, however most have abandoned that in favor of the Evangelical Dispensationalism. There does need to be more work done indeed. --MindyWaters (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


But how these different groups come down on the "overall interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel" is not an appropriate concern for an article solely devoted to one prophecy. That sort of consideration would only be appropriate to an article dedicated to comparing the eschatology of these groups on a more comprehensive basis.
The different ways in which this text has been read as a messianic prophecy can be easily summarized without all the redundancy. NeoRambam (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I suggest we request @NeoRambam to revise the section according to his ideas? @MindyWaters, this doesn't lock anyone into anything, it lets us all see an alternative. PiCo (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I have no problem editing sec. 5 along the lines I've been proposing, with the understanding that we may undo this work. If other editors are pleased with the new direction for sec. 5, then I'll probably do some additional research to make it better sourced. NeoRambam (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
no problem --MindyWaters (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll see what I can do over the next few days or so. NeoRambam (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I just wrapped up some other projects, so now I am ready to think about this again. NeoRambam (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Christological readings section[edit]

I've just finished assimilating the material in sec. 5 along the lines I've been proposing on this talk page for other editors to consider. I did not do too much in the way of additional research in creating this section, but am willing to work on better sourcing this material as time allows if we decide to keep it. For what it's worth, I believe this new direction is easier to read on account of its simplicity, and places the emphasis more appropriately on how the seventy weeks prophecy has been read instead of the many eschatological differences that obtain between various groups (which is quite difficult to summarize, in any case).

I would also like to say that I tried to be very sensitive to the concerns of other editors in writing this material insofar as they have been expressed on this talk page. NeoRambam (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to the lead section[edit]

Hello everyone. In the interest of bringing the article lead in greater conformity to WP:LEAD, I would like to propose a couple changes to the lead on this talk page. For the sake of convenience, the article lead currently reads as follows (minus the formatting):

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel tells how Daniel, pondering the meaning of Jeremiah's prediction that Jerusalem would remain desolate for seventy years, is told by the angel Gabriel that "seventy years" should be taken as "seventy weeks" of years.

My concerns with this lead are as follows: (1) technically, Gabriel does not explicitly tell Daniel in chapter 9 that Jeremiah's seventy years of exile should be interpreted as involving seventy weeks of years, and (2) whether there is such a relationship between the two prophecies is a point of scholarly dispute and to only mention one side of the dispute would not be consistent with the aim of having a neutral lead per WP:LEAD; finally, (3) I am not sure the current lead does a good enough job of summarizing the article mainspace per WP:LEAD.

Now, it is certainly true that many scholars suspect that the seventy weeks prophecy is a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy but, again, there are other scholars who disagree with this view and I have tried to briefly summarize the nature of this dispute (with appropriate references) in the Context within chapter 9 subsection. To briefly summarize the other side on this talk page, the reason that Daniel prays to God in vv. 3-19 just after the Babylonian kingdom is overthrown (v. 1) is precisely because God promised through Jeremiah that he would once again pay special attention to his people and respond to such prayers once the seventy years are completed (Jer 29:10-14a), which is also the time when he would punish the Babylonian kingdom (Jer 25:12). It follows that the seventy weeks prophecy delivered by Gabriel cannot possibly be a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy (according to this view) since the occasion of Daniel's prayer in vv. 3-19 is precisely the latter's fulfillment.

Having said all that, here is the sort of lead that I think would avoid the difficulties mentioned above:

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel tells how a prophecy was given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel subsequent to the former's prayer that God would act on behalf of his people and city, which are respectively in exile and remain desolate within the narrative setting of this chapter. The prophecy has proved notoriously difficult for readers in many respects and has even developed the reputation of being a "dismal swamp" for scholarly criticism.

The bit about the seventy weeks prophecy being a "dismal swamp" for scholarly criticism goes back to Montgomery and continues to be mentioned in the historical-critical scholarly literature, in which scholars like to humorously quip about their efforts to shed some new light on this prophecy and thereby "drain the swamp," etc. NeoRambam (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This sounds ok to me. The previous one had way too much interpretation put into it. Just stick to what the text actually says, not what someone says it says. --MindyWaters (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the support @MindyWaters, I'll go ahead and change the lead section in the manner described above. NeoRambam (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Trimming back the Further reading section[edit]

I am trimming back the Further reading section to just those sources that specifically concern Daniel 9 and also meet WP's criteria for being a reliable source of some kind. For the most part, the sources that were edited from this section either concerned the Book of Daniel as a whole or the even more general topic of apocalyptic literature; however, the way I see it, readers interested in exploring these more general topics can either go to the relevant WP page devoted to them, or can explore in more depth a number of the sources already found in the References section. NeoRambam (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Change title for chapter 11?[edit]

For NeoRambam and Mindy: I'm putting this here because you're about the only people I know who are particularly active on this set of articles. There's a single article dealing with chapters10-11-12 of Daniel, which is understandable as they deal with a single vision (it happens to have been given three chapters in bibles, but that's just because chapters were only introduced in the Middle Ages - they're not original). Would it not be a good idea to retitle that article? Maybe as Daniel's Final Vision or something? This is just a suggestion as I don't want to be accused of "owning" the article. By the way, I congratulate you both on your work here. PiCo (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words @PiCo! I think your suggestion of giving a new title to that article along the lines you propose is an excellent idea, and that the current title (i.e. "Daniel 11") is inappropriate to the full scope of the material covered there, as you point out. NeoRambam (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Fragments from chapters 10, 11 and 12 have shown up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see , so they were part of the original book of Daniel and were not added later in the Middle Ages. --MindyWaters (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@PiCo is only saying that the chapter divisions were added during the medieval period, not that the underlying text was originally produced at that time. I also know for a fact that this is true with regards to the chapter divisions in the New Testament; I am less sure about the Hebrew Bible, though, but it doesn't matter in any case since Dan 10–12 obviously constitute a unified whole. NeoRambam (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That's correct, I merely mean that the book was originally one long piece, and the chapter divisions came later. I might be wrong about them coming in the Middle Ages, though. Anyway, if it's agreed that the article should be retitled, I think we need to approach an admin to do it, or at least for advice, as I think retitling articles is a serious matter.PiCo (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. NeoRambam (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary passages[edit]

As PiCo rightly noted, it is standard terminology among biblical scholars to say that a passage is "secondary" if it is believed to have been added later. However, in my opinion, this is not an instance of idiosyncratic technical jargon that a non-specialist reader couldn't be expected to understand, as it is consistent with how this word is defined in a regular English dictionary. At the same time, if anyone disagrees with this judgment, please make your argument here so that we can discuss it on this talk page.

NeoRambam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispensationalist Readings[edit]

If anyone has a concern about how the dispensationalist view is represented in the Christological readings subsection, then let's discuss it here. NeoRambam (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)