Leolaia, I understand that the sequence of events as indicated in Daniel's prophecies and in Jewish history seem to support the idea that the events which we have here been discussing occurred in the order in which you have here described them. Namely that Antiochus set up an abomination which caused the desolation of the Jewish religion and abolished the daily sacrifices following his return to Syria from Egypt in 168 BC, and not before that time as my interpretation of Daniel's various "day" prophecies would have it. However, as I'm sure you are aware, the daily sacrifices began to be regularly neglected during the tenure of Jason long before Antiochus turned Jerusalem's Temple into a temple of Zeus. And since Menelaus as a non-Levite High Priest was not even legally authorized to perform any rituals of the Jewish religion, the daily sacrifices which he offered, if he offered any at all, must have gone unrecognized by God. These things being so, I believe the words of Dan. 11:31, where we are told of Antiochus desecrating the Temple, doing away with the daily sacrifices, and setting up an abomination that would bring about the desolation of the Jewish religion, should be understood in one of two ways. First, these words can be understood as an anachronism, parenthetically if you will. As you may know, Old Testament history contains several such anachronisms. Or the words of Dan. 11:31 may be understood as describing the highly visible actions that Antiochus would take upon his return from Egypt in 168 BC, unmistakable actions which would make it very clear to even casual observers that he had in fact desecrated the Temple, done away with the daily sacrifice, and set up an abomination which would temporarily bring an end to the Jewish religion, things that all careful Jewish observers had been aware of since he had appointed Menelaus to be High Priest in 171 BC, some 1290 days earlier. However, though the results of the actions of Antiochus were not noticed by casual observers until mid December of 168 BC, I believe the actual sequence of events which eventually resulted in Antiochus' completely removing all Jewish religious practices from Jerusalem's Temple began much earlier, some 2300 days earlier to be precise, in the year 174 BC, when Antiochus appointed Jason as High Priest. Mike
Daniels prophecy
by Hellrider 66 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
DaCheech
I have not paid any attention to the book study in progress for the last 5 months!
THis book is a joke!!!
Watchtower self gratification at it's best
-
Hellrider
Another thing about Daniel: The passage about "7 times" goes as follows:
(it`s not long, so I`ll post the whole thing)
Daniel 4,30 The king uttered these words: “Is this not the great Babylon that I have built for a royal residence by my own mighty strength and for my majestic honor?” 4:31 While these words were still on the king’s lips, a voice came down from heaven: “It is hereby announced to you, King Nebuchadnezzar, that your kingdom has been removed from you! 4:32 You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals. You will be fed grass like oxen, and seven periods of time will pass by for you before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever he wishes.”
4:33 Now in that very moment this pronouncement about Nebuchadnezzar came true. He was driven from human society, he ate grass like oxen, and his body became damp with the dew of the sky, until his hair became long like an eagle’s feathers, and his nails like a bird’s claws.
4:34 But at the end of the appointed time I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up toward heaven, and my sanity returned to me.
I extolled the Most High, and I praised and glorified the one who lives forever.
For his authority is an everlasting authority, and his kingdom extends from one generation to the next.
4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing.
He does as he wishes with the army of heaven and with those who inhabit the earth.
No one slaps his hand and says to him, ‘What have you done?’
4:36 At that time my sanity returned to me. I was restored to the honor of my kingdom, and my splendor returned to me.
...and as far as I know, that`s it. The expression "7 times" is mentioned this once, and in this context, (with 7 times as a period of time) only once, in the entire Bible, am I correct? It`s not mentioned anywhere else, is it? And from this, they take this to mean "a time period from the destruction of the Temple, until the end times begin...by applying the day-for-a-year-rule". And that`s it? There`s nothing else? (oh, except that bronze statue which is supposed to symbolise the earthly governments/empires at different times in history blah blah).
And that`s it? They got from this one expression of "7 times" in the context of this punishment of Nebuchadnezzar for not believing in yhwh, to their whole huge gigantic apocalyptic escathological math puzzle? Wtf? Are you kidding me? A ha ha ha!
-
Leolaia
I would say that the illegitimacy of Menelaus is noted obliquely by the author Daniel. The "anointed one" is "cut off" at the beginning of the final week in Daniel 9:26-27, and sacrifice is stopped with the abomination in its place at the "middle of the week" (so that 3 1/2 years of stopped sacrifice completes the 70th week). This leaves an initial 3 1/2 years with continued sacrifice but no "anointed one", i.e. no legitimate high priest. The 70 weeks bring to a completion of "anointing the Holy of Holies" (9:24), and the abomination is to be in place "until a conclusion which has been decreed" (v. 27), which naturally applies to the end of the 70 weeks....and yet, the end of the abomination and the final anointing of the sanctuary could not have been in 168 BC (sacrifice of swine on heathen altar to a pagan god = anointing the Holy of Holies?), but rather as 1 Maccabees has it....in 165 BC the abomination was torn down and cast to an unclean place, and legitimate priests restored and reanointed the sanctuary. Second, Daniel 11:22 refers to the "ruler of the covenant" being swept away, which probably refers to the demise of the legitimate priesthood through the assassination of Onias III, implying that whoever was to follow would not be "the ruler of the covenant".
Moreover the text refers to the cessation of daily sacrifice, which is what in fact occurred in 168 BC through Antiochus' edict ("forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary", 1 Maccabees 1:45) and especially by erecting the heathen altar in December 168 BC on the same spot as the altar of burnt sacrifice (cf. the emendation of 'l knp to 'l knm "in their place" in Daniel 9:27, which suggests that the abomination was replacing the daily sacrifice; cf. 'l knh in 11:28). Even if such sacrifices were considered illegitimate by God, they were still done until they were banned completely in 168 BC. Since the cessation of sacrifice and the installation of the abomination do not occur at the same time as the anointed one is "cut off", but instead occur "in the middle of the week," I believe Daniel already accounts for the period from 171-168 BC when sacrifices were still given but not by the proper "anointed one". As for Jason's earlier neglect of the sacrifices (due to his hellenizing tendencies), this was as you would say simply not relevant....neglect is not the same thing as "putting an end" to sacrifice and ceasing them altogether. Daniel's reference to such a stoppage does not rule out the possibility that sacrifices had earlier been neglected, and there is nothing requiring that this reference to ceasing sacrifice must apply to the whole period when observance of sacrifice became irregular. The text simply refers to a period when the "little horn" // the "king of the north" ceased daily sacrifice, and this is exactly what Antiochus did in 168-165 BC (as Josephus noted as a fulfillment of Daniel); I do not believe that Jason neglecting sacrifices of his own afford is what is in view here, nor the continued observance of sacrifice by illegitimate Menelaus who had to bribe Antiochus to gain power (not quite the same thing as Antiochus being the one who ceases sacrifice). I see no compelling reason to favor any other application than the one that fits so well, like glove to hand: the complete cessation of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus in 168 BC and the installation of the heathen altar in its stead. And what was more of an "appalling horror" (the Hebrew of "abomination of desolation") to Law-observant Jews: a high priest who happened to not be from the tribe of Levi, or a pagan altar inside the sanctuary used to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals to a pagan god!
As far as the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" are concerned, I notice that you take them to be 2,300 full days rather than half days, amounting to a total of 6 1/3 years. But this is most unlikely since the number refers to the total number of occasions when an evening and morning offering was not performed, during a set period when "the daily offering was taken away" (8:11) by the "little horn"; thus earlier cases of non-observance through incompetance or neglect by the high priest is not what is probably in view here, and the total number of consecutive days during the cessation of constant sacrifice would be 1,150 since these sacrifices were earlier given twice a day. This number is slightly less than the 3 1/2 years of 7:25 and 9:27, but it is certainly comparable. The perpetual sacrifice is described in Exodus 29:38-42 and Numbers 28:2-8 (cf. tmyd in Daniel 8:11 = Exodus 29:42), and during exilic times a single offering in the morning was sometimes given (cf. Ezekiel 46:13-15), but two daily sacrifices were given in post-exilic times (Ezra 3:3, cf. Sirach 45:14: "His grain offering is thoroughly burnt in the perpetual sacrifice twice a day") as mandated in Exodus 29:39, and the evening offering is in fact mentioned in Daniel 9:21. These offerings were completely suspended by Antiochus in 168 BC as 1 Maccabees 1:45 notes. The other key point is that the terminus of the 2,300 half days is when "the sanctuary has its rights restored" (Daniel 8:14), which refers not to the cessation of "corrupted Jewish practice" as you may put it but the restoration of the sanctuary to legitimate worship....an event that imho can only refer to the restoration of sacrifices and undefiled worship in 165 BC. I cannot get my mind around the concept that instituting pagan worship by sacrificing unclean animals in honor of Zeus Olympias is what the author meant in referring to the Temple having its rights restored (i.e. being "vindicated", "justified", etc.). It doesn't make sense to me. Yet 168 BC is what you posit as the terminus of the 2,300 days.
This, coupled with everything else in my last two posts that doesn't seem to fit, makes me wonder what makes your suggestion (interesting and novel as it is) more compelling than the usual view which imho is much more felicitous to the wording and context of the Danielic oracles and which was expressed by writers from the second century BC onward: namely, that the period of the abomination and the cessation of sacrifice occurred in 168-165 BC when Antiochus banned sacrifices and installed a heathen altar called the abomination of desolation. Antiochus did almost exactly what would be expected by Daniel in 168-165 BC (at the right time as the order of events in ch. 11 indicates), to displace the cessation of sacrifice and the installation of the abomination to some time earlier requires a whole set of assumptions and creative readings that in my view are completely unnecessary when the usual Antiochene interpretation is adopted.
-
a Christian
Leolaila, You wrote: I would say that the illegitimacy of Menelaus is noted obliquely by the author Daniel. The "anointed one" is "cut off" at the beginning of the final week in Daniel 9:26-27 ...
You then go on to support your understanding of how the actions of Antiochus are referenced in Daniel's "70 Weeks" prophecy. However, since I do not believe the words of Daniel 9:24-27 were intended to in any way apply to events which took place during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, I was not persuaded by your arguments.
You wrote: Moreover the text refers to the cessation of daily sacrifice, which is what in fact occurred in 168 BC through Antiochus' edict ... As I pointed out, since Menelaus was not allowed by God's Law to offer those sacrifices, those sacrifices totally ceased in God's eyes at the time Menelaus became High Priest. Consider this illustration: Only citizens of the United States are allowed to vote in U.S. elections. People who are not U.S. citizens may if they wish drop off a slip of paper to a U.S. polling place on election day stating who they wish to be elected and call it a "vote." But if their "vote" is not recognized by the proper authorities as a "vote" and is not counted by those authorities as a "vote" is it really a "vote"? No, it is not. Neither were any of the sacrifices offered by Menelaus counted as "sacrifices" by the only One whose opinion on this matter counted. Thus I believe the cessation of daily sacrifices began in 171 BC. You wrote: As for Jason's earlier neglect of the sacrifices (due to his hellenizing tendencies), this was as you would say simply not relevant....neglect is not the same thing as "putting an end" to sacrifice and ceasing them altogether. I agree. Daniel prophesied that "After 2,300 days the sanctuary will be cleansed," of corrupted Jewish religious practices which began with the appointment of Jason as High Priest. (Dan. 8:14 KJV) However, he said there were only going to be "1290 days" "from the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up," until that cleansing took place. (Dan. 12:11) I have not said that the sacrifices were ever abolished during the tenure of Jason, only that they were often neglected while he was High Priest. I believe that fact, along with other corruptions which Jason introduced into the Jewish religion during his time as its visible leader, marked the beginning of his service as a very significant time in Bible prophecy, the beginning of the "2,300 days" of Daniel 8:14. You wrote: As far as the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" are concerned, I notice that you take them to be 2,300 full days rather than half days ... Yes I do, just as many Bible commentators and translators also do. We understand these words to refer to 2,300 days because we understand "2,300 evenings and mornings" to refer to 2,300 evenings and 2,300 mornings. If I tell you I am going on a Caribbean cruise and will be gone for fourteen days and nights, do you think I am going to be gone for only seven of each? Of course not. I believe those who understand the "2,300 evenings and mornings" in such a way, to refer to 1,150 of each, only do so to make their own prophetic interpretation of Daniel's prophecies come close to alligning with the dates of historical events which took place during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. You wrote: The other key point is that the terminus of the 2,300 half days is when "the sanctuary has its rights restored" (Daniel 8:14), which refers not to the cessation of "corrupted Jewish practice" as you may put it but the restoration of the sanctuary to legitimate worship. You say this as if it were a proven fact. But it is not. You wrote: I cannot get my mind around the concept that instituting pagan worship by sacrificing unclean animals in honor of Zeus Olympias is what the author meant in referring to the Temple having its rights restored (i.e. being "vindicated", "justified", etc.). It doesn't make sense to me. Yet 168 BC is what you posit as the terminus of the 2,300 days. To begin with, you may do well to keep this fact in mind. Before pagan worship was introduced into Jerusalem's Temple all vestiges of the corrupted Jewish religion were first removed. You may also want to do some reading on the meaning of the Hebrew word "sedeq" used in Dan. 8:14 which has been rendered in various Bible translations as "cleansed," "vindicated, "justified," and even as "reconsecrated" and "properly restored." According to the "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" (1980 Vol. 2, pgs. 752-755) this word simply means "to be just, righteous." The article on this word's somewhat simple meaning points out that "the vistation of punishment on moral infractions is an example of righteousness." This article also makes a statement which I believe is very relevant to this discussion. It tells us, "God is just to deliver the national sanctuary to the sword of Israel's enemies on account of her sins." This being true, justice (sedeq) was certainly done in mid-December of 168 BC when Menelaus assisted the armed forces of Antiochus in then removing everyone and everything associated with the Jewish religion from Jerusalem's Temple.
You wrote: to displace the cessation of sacrifice and the installation of the abomination to some time earlier requires a whole set of assumptions and creative readings that in my view are completely unnecessary when the usual Antiochene interpretation is adopted. You may be right about that. I do not believe having the precisely correct interpretation of all of Daniel's various "day" prophecies is a matter of great importance. Especially if people can read these prophecies of Daniel, compare them to the facts of history, find a fairly close match between the two, and recognize Daniel as a true prophet of God. So, if you can do that while understanding Daniel's prophecies as you now do, that's fine with me. Mike -
nonjwspouse
Such an interesting thread! I am following the Chronicle Project, and the recent newsletter email which preceeds the published article on the website caused me to search for the WT interpretation of Daniel, which brought me to this thread.
Leo seems to be closely in line with the researchers ( Chris Tyreman is one of the writers ) in the Chronicle Project.
Ex: original writings say annointed, which is what other high priests were called, not exclusively the messiah or Christ.
There are many more. Anyone interested in this scholarly project should check them out. I am on the newsletter emailing list. Facinating.
-
Bobcat
marked