Scholar, I'll even paste my last response and question to you:
Scholar,
You interpretation is preposterous and is not supported by Bible commentators. Did you bother to check what commentaries have to say on this subject of Zechariah 7:5 and 1:12
Well, yes. From John J Collins 'Daniel' page 349.
seventy years: The reference (in Dan 9:2) is to Jer 25:11,12; 29:10. In Jeremiah's prophecy the seventy years most probably begin from the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E. In Jer 25:11-12 the context is the desolation of "this land" and the subjugation of the peoples round about. In Jer 29:10 the context is advice to the deportees. [See, however, Kratz (Translatio Imperii, 224-25), who holds that Jer 29:10 refers to the duration of Babylonian supremacy in the west, which he dates from the Battle of Carchemish in 605/604 B.C.E. Ross E.Winckle ("Jeremiah's Seventy Weeks For Babylon: A Re-Assessment. Part II: The Historical Data," 289-299) would push the starting point back to 609 B.C.E. so that it could be accurately fulfilled in 539 B.C.E.]
The seventy years is generally regarded as a round number, equivalent to a lifetime. (Holladay, Jeremiah I, 668-69) The same number is found in the Black Stone of Esarhaddon: Marduk decreed seventy years of desolation for Babylon, when it was destroyed by Sennacherib in 689 B.C.E., but relented and allowed it to be restored after eleven years.
According to 2 Chron 36:20-22, Jeremiah's prophecy referred to the period from the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.E. and was fulfilled in the restoration under Cyrus (so also Ezra 1:1). According to Zech 1:12, the seventy years extended to the second year of Darius I of Persia (519 B.C.E.)
In the fictional chronology of Daniel, chap 9 is set before the advent of Cyrus. The real author of Daniel, however, wrote long after the Chronicler and Zechariah, and pointedly rejected their interpretation of the prophecy.
It could not have continued till 518 because the seventy years were not fulfilled so the angelic reminder could only referred to something that had already concluded namely the seventy years.
Again, you don't seem to understand that prophetical interpretations can exist in the bible itself. Here is some more background to Zechariah and some commentary on dating the destruction of the temple from Edwin Yamauchi "Persia and the Bible" p155, 159. Hopefully it will show you why the fasting 'these seventy years' extends to the 519 BC.
The Rebuilding of the Jewish Temple: Solomon's temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 or 586 BC. Although the Jews who had returned under Cyrus had laid the foundation of a second temple in 536 BC, work was halted during the next twenty years in the face of opposition (Ezra 4:1-5). The Lord then raised up two prophets to stir the people to action (Ezra 5:1).
Beginning on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1), and continuing until December 18 (Hag 2:1-9, 20ff), Haggai delivered a series of three messages to provoke the people into recommencing work on the temple. Two months after Haggai's first message, Zechariah joined him (Zech 1:1).
The temple was thus finished on March 12, 515 BC, a little over seventy years after it's destruction. As the renewed work on the temple had begun September 21, 520 BC (Hag 1:4-15), sustained effort had been expended for four years and three months by the inspired community.
Footnote: Scholars such as Albright, Freedman, Tadmor and Wiseman, who believe that the Jews used a calendar beginning in Nisan (April), date the fall of Jerusalem to the summer of 587 BC. Others such as Horn, Malamat, Redford, Saggs and Thiele, who believe the Jews used a calendar beginning in Tishri (September), date the fall of of Jerusalem to the summer of 586 BC. See H. Tadmor "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah", p226-30; S. Horn, "The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdon of Judah", p 12-27; K. Freedy and D. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources", p462-85;
Hopefully you can see now why some scholars choose 586 and some 587. If Jonsson chooses 587 as the date it does not invalidate the rest of his research, as you seem to think it does.
This is not WT interpretation but an observation based upon many commentaries.
O.K. Your turn, Scholar. Which commentaries and please provide some quotations.
CF.
