Nark,
You wrote: The interruption of sacrifices is clearly described in 8:11-13 and it is not meant as a "good" thing.
I agree. But that is chapter eight, not chapter 9.
You wrote: Guess who is supposed to do that in Daniel 9? The rejected and cut off "good" "messiah," i.e. "anointed one" (= the high priest Onias III, v. 26a), or the "evil" destroyer prince (= Antiochus IV, v. 26b)?
I am well aware of the actions of Antiochus IV. Here is how I now understand the prophetic and historical chronology of the time period:
Jewish history indicates that Daniel's various "day" prophecies very well fit events which took place between the years 174 and 164 BC. In those historical accounts we find strong reason to believe that the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, as well as the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11,12 were all literally and precisely fulfilled during the reign of Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. The following information can be easily obtained by reading a few Jewish history books and Bible commentaries.
In 174 BC Jason, the brother of High Priest Onias III, secured the High Priesthood for himself by bribing Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. Jason's actions thereafter, such as promoting Jewish participation in athletic competitions dedicated to the Greek god Hercules and sending silver from the temple treasury to be sacrificed to that false god, caused the temple priests to neglect the sacrifices which were required by Jewish law. History records the fact that this corrupted Jewish worship, which began with the appointment of Jason as High Priest, was not completely cleansed from the temple until mid December of 168 BC when it was forcefully removed by the military forces of the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, with the very willing and active assistance of Jason’s successor as High Priest, Menelaus.
Though history does not record the exact month and day of Jason's appointment as High Priest in 174 BC, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that his appointment took place 2,300 days before the temple was cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship in mid December of 168 BC. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "After 2,300 days (or evenings and mornings) the sanctuary will be cleansed." (Dan. 8:14 KJV) Many Bible commentators believe that the "evenings and mornings” here spoken of refer to the evening and morning sacrifices which began to be neglected after the appointment of Jason as High Priest.
In 171 BC, Menelaus, a Jew not born of the line of Aaron, managed to have himself appointed as High Priest in place of Jason by offering Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason had previously paid. Since Menelaus was not of the line of Aaron, in fact not even a Levite, his being set up as High Priest was "an abomination" to God. And since he was not permitted by Jewish law, as were other High Priests, to "daily offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins and then the sins of the people" (Heb. 7:27), "the daily sacrifice" was then "abolished" in God's eyes.
Though history does not record the exact month and day of Menelaus' appointment as High Priest in 171 BC, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that 1,290 days passed between the time Menelaus became High Priest and the time he finished assisting Antiochus Epiphanes in bringing about the total "desolation" of the Jewish religion. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up there will be 1,290 days." (Dan. 12:11)
History tells us that it was in mid December of 168 BC that Jerusalem's Temple was completely cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship brought about by the actions of Jason and Menelaus. This cleansing took place when Antiochus Epiphenes completely outlawed all practices of the Jewish religion. Jewish history indicates that some 2,300 days of corrupted Jewish worship then came to an end, a corruption which began with the appointment of High Priest Jason in 174 BC. Jewish history also indicates that some 1,290 days had also then passed since Menelaus, the "abomination" who had "abolished the daily sacrifice" and caused the "desolation" of the Jewish religion, had first been "set up" as High Priest.
Three years later, in mid December of 165 BC, the revolt of the Maccabees finally reestablished undefiled Jewish worship in Jerusalem's temple. In the year 164 BC Antiochus Epiphanes died and was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator. Later that same year Antiochus Eupator made a peace treaty with the Jews which guaranteed them religious freedom.
Though history does not record the exact month and day that Eupator made that peace treaty with the Jews, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that this peace treaty was made 1335 days after Antiochus Epiphanes, with the assistance of High Priest Menelaus, completely cleansed Jerusalem's Temple of all corrupted Jewish worship. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days." (Dan.12:12)
History testifies that all of the "day" prophecies of Daniel very well fit very important events which took place in Jewish history between the years 174 and 164 BC.
Some have objected to this understanding because they feel God could not have considered the sanctuary to have been “cleansed” at the time the pagan alter was erected in the temple in 168 BC. For they say at that time the temple was more defiled than ever before. However, I disagree. For the temple was completely cleansed of the corrupted worship of the one true God at the time Menelaus assisted Syria's armies in removing all vestiges of Jewish worship from Jerusalem's temple. The fact that the temple was then converted into a temple of a false god, I believe, is totally irrelevant.
For, I believe God's only concern was to then "cleanse" Jerusalem's temple of corrupt Jewish religious practices. How and by whom Jerusalem's temple was used during the following three years is entirely beside the point. To illustrate this fact, I will remind you that cleaning solutions quite often contain ingredients which are poisonous. After being used to cleanse a vessel of filth these cleansers almost always leave behind residue which is itself harmful and must also be removed at a later time before the cleansed vessel is finally again fit for use. However, no one will deny that the dirty vessel was "cleansed" prior to the time that the cleanser's poisonous residue was itself removed.
You wrote: Your chronological development is amazing but completely irrelevant imo. As a complete reading of Daniel 9 clearly shows, the 70 weeks of years are meant as a reinterpretation and an extension of Jeremiah's 70 years. Their starting point is the same (from "Daniel"'s viewpoint, Jerusalem's destruction and promise of restoration) -- it has nothing to do with Nehemiah.
I often find myself doing what you have just done, saying that something or other "clearly shows" that one of my present understandings is correct. Lately I have been trying my best to humbly avoid using such language. Especially when I know that the vast majority of Bible readers and Bible scholars disagree with the understanding that now seems so "clear" to me. I also now try to avoid using such language because I know that I have changed my opinion on many things over the years that I once believed were "clearly" correct.
You wrote: In your reading there is absolutely no point to the singling out of the first 7 "weeks" in the text; with the right starting point they correspond to the duration of the exile, which makes a lot more sense.
I disagree. The first seven weeks pertain to the time it will take "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" until that work was completed. Daniel had just finished praying to God because he was greatly concerned with "the desolation of the city" of Jerusalem. (Dan. 9:18) The "Seventy Weeks" prophecy was then given to him partly in response to his prayer containing his concerns for that city. The opening verse of the prophecy, verse 24, says in part that, "Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city." The prophecy is divided into "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens." The first event mentioned to take place during that time is the city being "built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of trouble." (vs 25) History indicates that Jerusalem was in fact completely rebuilt within forty-nine years of the time Artaxerxes issued the decree that permitted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to begin its rebuilding. As I wrote earlier, seven weeks of years (49 lunar years, 47.54 solar years) from the spring of 440 BC (Artaxerxes' 20th year, and his 25th year according to Josephus' reckoning) brings us to the late autumn of 393 BC. By this time Jerusalem's rebuilding had been completed. Verse 26 then goes on to describe events which will take place after the following "sixty-two sevens."
You wrote: As to a Christian's question about why the chronological focus on John instead of Jesus, I might suggest, a bit provocatively: because John, not Jesus, is known and situated as a historical character in Luke's sources, including Josephus. And only by connecting Jesus to John can the Gospels hope to root the former into history.
Or it could be that Luke viewed the tandem ministries of John and Jesus essentially as one, and he was noting the starting point of what he viewed as one very important seven year prophetic period.
You wrote: before accepting other reckonings as plausible I would ask for evidence that those were effectively used by contemporary historians (late 1st or early 2nd century AD, Greek or Roman), not mere modern constructions.
Though I cannot speak to the historical recording practices of 1st and 2nd century AD secular historians, I can give you much evidence that Bible writers often reckoned time in exactly the way Luke may have here done. That is, if indeed he did count the spring of A.D. 26 as falling in the 15th year of Tiberius. If Luke did so, he would have been counting the rule of Tiberius "from his joint rule of the provinces, according to the non-accession-year system," as Finegan tells us. Though you admit to having a "general lack of interest for chronology," I have long had a great interest in the subject and have studied it rather thoroughly. To support my claim that Bible writers often counted the years of a king's reign beginning with the partial calendar year in which he began to act as his predecessor's coregent (or as Finegan words it, "from his joint rule of the provinces, according to the non-accession-year system") I will direct you to The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele, which is probably the most highly regarded book on the subject of Bible chronology ever written. In it Thiele gives several examples showing that Bible writers often reckoned the reigns of kings in just this way.