Daniel's Messiah in the Critics' Den
Editor's Note:
This article is reprinted with permission from Steve Hinrich's site at http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/.
We encourage our readers to digest more of Steve's material there.
DANIEL'S MESSIAH IN THE CRITIC'S DEN
-by Steve Hinrichs (Revised 6/00)
- INTRODUCTION
- RATIONAL METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SUPERNATURAL CAUSE
- INTERPETATION AND JUSTIFICATION
- CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
- ANALOGY
- CRITICISM AND REBUTTALS
- CONCLUSION
- HINRICHS REFERENCES
Definition of terms-
Poor, remarkable, extraordinary- Quantitative definitions of
these terms are described in section 2.2.4 of Ref. 17.
1. INTRODUCTION
In Daniel 9:24-27, an Old Testament passage, there is a prophecy
for the coming of the Messiah. Daniel says from the time when a decree is issued
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, there will be 7+62 weeks until the Messiah
will come. A straightforward approach to interpetating this prophecy at least
remarkably points to the best known candidate for the Messiah, Jesus. Section 2
presents the rational basis for identifying a supernatural cause. Section 3
presents the justification for different interpretations. A conservative
probability calculation is presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents an analogy
to the prophecy fulfillment. Section 6 responds to the best criticisms that the
critics have published. Section 7 presents the conclusion.
2. RATIONAL METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SUPERNATURAL CAUSE
Ref.17 presents a rational method for identifying the
intervention of the supernatural. This rational method involves using proof by
elimination to make the case that the supernatural has intervened. This is
accomplished by showing there is no successful natural explanation for a certain
event implying that the cause of that event involved the supernatural. To make
this case Ref. 17 explains that it must be shown that the event cannot be
successfully explained by deterministic or indeterministic natural principles or
natural intelligence.
The two natural possibilities for prophecy fulfillment are by
chance (indeterministic natural principle) or by natural intelligence. As
explained in Ref. 17, to do an objective probability calculation a detachable SS
criterion that the prophecy satisfies needs to be evaluated. The following list
characteristics for an objective SS criterion which includes the Daniel 9:25
prophecy. A most fundamental goal for a supernatural intelligence would be to
communicate to humans that there is a purposeful plan for them. Humans of all
known creatures have the strongest interest in purpose. Religions are the main
organizations in society that claim there is a supernatural intelligence with a
purposeful plan for humans. Thus, it is most fundamental to consider religions.
Christianity is the largest religion and according to Christianity their leader,
Jesus, did make supernatural claims. Thus, it is most fundamental to consider if
there is supernatural evidence that point to Jesus. The most specific Biblical
prophecy that points to Jesus is in Daniel 9:25; thus, it is most fundamental
too consider this passage. These characteristics directly relate to a
fundamental potential purpose for a supernatural intelligence. Thus, it is
appropriate to consider the SS criterion for Daniel 9:25 prophecy essentially
completely restrictive. Since the Daniel 9:25 prophecy is most fundamental for
each of these characteristics, the Daniel 9:25 prophecy satisfy them in a most
straight forward way. These characteristics are not in any way derived from some
natural knowledge of the prophecy fulfilling event, the time of the coming of
Jesus; therefore, this SS criterion is detachable.
The probability for Daniel 9:25 being a successful prophecy
depends upon how straightforward are the interpretations used in determining the
start date, the duration and the end date. The probability also depends upon how
close the prophetic date is to the date it predicted. The interpretations are
explained in Section 3. The conservative probability calculation is presented in
Section 4.
3. INTERPETATION AND JUSTIFICATION
There is often different plausible ways of interpreting what
some has said. The more probable the interpretation was intended by the author,
the more straightforward an interpretation is considered. The probability is
determined by considering the style of the author, common usage of the language
and the context of the passage. Comparing how straight forward each of the
interpretations are is one of the requirements for determining a conservative
estimate for the probability of the prophecy being fulfilled as explained in
Section 2 of Ref. 17. Also, how restrictive the interpretation defines success
for fulfillment is also a requirement for determining a conservative estimate
for the probability of the prophecy being fulfilled.
3.1 Daniel Prophetic Passage
Daniel 9:24-27 says:
"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and
your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the
most holy place. "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing
of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will
be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and
moat, even in times of distress. "Then after the sixty-two weeks the
Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to
come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a
flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. "And
he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of
the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of
abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete
destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes
desolate."
3.2 Daniel 9:25 "weeks" mean for seven years
The Hebrew word "shabua" used for "week" in
Daniel 9:25 does literally means "seven" (6). Daniel uses a different
Hebrew word in Daniel 10:2 where he obviously is referring to normal weeks (6).
Daniel 9:2 indicates that he was thinking of years. Considering what is to be
accomplished during this period, rebuilding and destroying of Jerusalem, years
is more reasonable than weeks. Therefore, it is most straight forward to
consider that Daniel actually meant 483 "prophetic years" by the 69
weeks he mentioned in 9:25. .
3.3 Number of days for Daniel's "prophetic years"
There are three different plausible concepts that Daniel could
have meant by "years". The standard solar year (365.242 days) is
naturally one of them. The author of Daniel would have been aware that a year
began and ended with certain seasons that followed the solar year; thus, a solar
year is considered the most straight forward interpretation of an prophetic
year. However, since people at that time were not precisely aware of how long a
solar year was, the number of days considered for a year during the time the
book of Daniel was written was not necessarily intended to be the exact amount
of 365.242. Present knowledge of the Jewish calendar in use before the period of
the Babylonian Exile is both limited and uncertain (10); however, the
information that is known on the subject indicates two other known concepts as
plausible candidates, the lunar year and the year based upon 30 day months.
Since there isn't any definite indication of which type of year Daniel was
thinking of, use of either one of these two types of years as his
"prophetic year" is considered as straight forward as the other.
3.3.1 Lunar year (354 days)
The Gezer calendar from late 10th century BC seems to indicate a
lunar calendar was being used for agriculture tasks and the Babylonian calendar
at the time of the traditional Daniel was a lunar year (10).
3.3.2 360 days (12 30 day months)
The one OT passage that actually assigns the number of days to a
month assigns 30 days. The number of days between the seventeenth day of the
second month (Genesis 7:11) and the seventeenth day of the seventh month
(Genesis 8:4) is 150 days (Genesis 8:3); thus, an average of 30 days for these 5
months. The author of the book of Daniel whether written at the date set by the
critics or the traditional date would have been aware of this passage.
The one NT passage that actually assigns the number of days to a
year assigns 360 days. 2) Revelations 11 & 12 refer to the same persecution
era as the last week of these seventy weeks (5). Rev. 11:2-3 give 1260 days for
42 months; thus, average of 30 days for these months. Rev. 12:14 implies that
this period is 3 and 1/2 years; thus, these years are 360 days.
There are historical records that the 360 day year was in
previously in use in the Babylonian region. The Sumerians which are from ancient
Babylon used a 360 day calendar. "This fluctuating and discontinuous year
was not precise enough for the meticulous accounting of Sumerian scribes, who by
2400 BC already used the schematic year of 30 12 = 360 days." (10) Since a
lunar month is approximately 29 and 1/2 days it is not surprising that some
folks (quite possibly including the author of Daniel) rounded a month to 30
days.
The assertion that the author Daniel in 9:25 was thinking of
constant 30 day months does not require the official calendar to be 360 days
long. It was during the Babylonian captivity when the names of the Jewish months
were first determined so the concept of the calendar was not necessarily a fixed
concept in the minds of the people during the time of the traditional Daniel.
Thus, Daniel thinking of a 360 day concept is quite plausible. The critics
assign the Genesis 7:11&8:3,4 passage to "P" which was supposedly
written between 570BC and 450BC. So according to the critics some hypothetical
scribe thinking of a constant 30 day month is plausible during the time of the
traditional Daniel. This is just as applicable for the author of Daniel. If
Genesis was written by Moses is 1400BC then it is also quite plausible that
Daniel was a student of Genesis; thus, had in mind the concept of a constant 30
day month. Granted, Daniel's period of time covers many years rather than seven
months, but still the proposed interpretation of Daniel 9:25 is just an
extension of constant 30 day months.
3.4 Decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Starting date)
Daniel 9:25 says that a decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem
will mark the starting date for the 483 "prophetic years". The two
best candidates are listed in this section. The Nehemiah decree is considered
the most straight forward and the Ezra decree is considered the 2nd best.
3.4.1 Nehemiah 2:1-8 (About which is Nisan 1 of Artaxerxes I
20th year
Nehemiah 2:1-8 is the only OT passage that explicitly records a
decree of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1-8 says the decree was issued
in the month of Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign. Ref. 7 substantiates
that Nehemiah was using Tishri as the first month (reckoning used by Kings of
Judah) rather than Nisan (reckoning used by Persians).
Artaxerxes reign began when his father Xerxes died. Xerses death
can be precisely determined (11). The date of the death of Xerxes may be
accurately fixed by reference to eclipses. On a tablet that lists lunar eclipses
at 18-year intervals occurs the following brief announcement between two eclipse
records: "Month V, day 14 [?], Xerxes was murdered by his son."
Unfortunately, the cuneiform sign for the day of the month is damaged, and a
viable reading could be anything from 14 to 18. The year is missing, but it can
be deduced from the 18-year sequence as 465 BC. This identification is confirmed
by calculating the dates of the two eclipses stated to have occurred in the same
year that Xerxes died. The first of these happened when the Moon was in the
constellation of Sagittarius, while the second took place on the 14th day of the
8th lunar month. For many years both before and after 465 BC, no such
combination of eclipses can be found; it occurs only in 465 BC itself. The dates
deduced for the two eclipses are June 5 and November 30 of that year. Mention of
an intercalary sixth month on the same tablet enables the date of the death of
Xerxes to be fixed as some time between August 4 and 8 in 465 BC.
The day that begins the first Persian calendar year for
Artaxerxes 1st Regnal year is April 13, 464 (12). This puts the date of the
decree in the period of March 5 - April 3 444BC. Since we do not know exactly
prior to 900AD how the Jewish calendar accounted for leap months, there is an
additional unknown of one month in exactly determining when Nehemiah's Nisan
month occurred.
3.4.2 Ezra 7 decree
There actually is no mention of a decree for rebuilding
Jerusalem in Ezra 7. Thus, the Ezra 7 decree is not considered as straight
forward an interpretation for the starting date as the Nehemiah decree. However,
Ezra 9:9 may be an implication that there was such a decree given in Ezra 7.
Ezra 7:8 says that the decree was given in the fifth month (Av, or the
July-August time period) of the 7th year of Arterexes.
3.5 Coming of the Messiah (ending date)
Daniel 9:25 says that the coming of the Messiah marks the ending
date for the prophecy. Jesus is clearly the best known candidate for qualifying
as the Messiah; thus, most straight forward to consider Jesus as the fulfillment
of this prophecy. The specific day that stands out the most as marking the
coming of Jesus is the "triumphal entry". The "triumphal
entry" or "Palm Sunday #1" is the first day of the passion week
in Jerusalem where Jesus comes to Jerusalem. The day that Jesus starts his
ministry could also mark the coming of the Messiah, but does not stand out as
much so is not considered as straight forward as the "triumphal
entry". The day the Jesus was born could also mark the coming of the
Messiah, but does not stand out as much so is not considered as straight forward
as the start of his ministry. The ending date falling within the life of Jesus
(at most 37 years) or his ministry (3 years) would still qualify as pointing to
Jesus.
3.5.1 Jesus's Birth, Ministry and Death
The Julian calendar, also called OLD STYLE CALENDAR, dating
system was established by Julius Caesar as a reform of the Roman republican
calendar (q.v.). Caesar, advised by the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes, made
the new calendar solar, not lunar, and he took the length of the solar year as
365 1/4 days. The year was divided into 12 months, all of which had either 30 or
31 days except February, which contained 28 days in common (365-day) years and
29 in every fourth year (a leap year, of 366 days). Because of
misunderstandings, the calendar was not established in smooth operation until AD
8. Sosigenes had overestimated the length of the year by 11 minutes 14 seconds,
and by the mid-1500s, the cumulative effect of this error had shifted the dates
of the seasons by about 10 days from Caesar's time. Pope Gregory XIII's reform
(see Gregorian calendar), proclaimed in 1582, restored the calendar to the
seasonal dates of AD 325, an adjustment of 10 days. Thus, after 8 AD the Roman
(Julian) calendar has been precisely known as explained below by Ref. 11
allowing in some cases to determine exactly what day a certain event occurred
on.
Ref. 7 explains why the winter of 5 or 4 BC is most probable
date that the Gospels refer to as when Jesus was born. According to Ref. 11,
Tiberius Caesar became Caesar in 14 AD. According to Luke 3:1 Jesus began His
ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar which makes it 29AD. However, there
are scholars (14) who think that Luke was using a Syrian calendar which would
then mean Jesus's ministry started in 26AD. Since the Crucifixion is set in the
Passover week, scholars have determined that Jesus crucifixion occurred in
either 30 or 33 AD as explained in Ref. 7. Since three Passover's are recorded
in the Gospel of John, it is assumed that Jesus ministry covered 3 years. Based
on a ministry start of 29 AD this places the triumphal entry of Christ to
Jerusalem on Nisan 10 (March 30) AD 33. An 26 AD start places the end of Jesus
ministry in 30 AD. In this case the triumphal entry would have occurred on
Sunday, April 2, AD 30. Ref. 7 claims that the AD 33 date fits best.
3.6 Dating the Authorship of Daniel
Because of the astonishing prophecies that are in the book of
Daniel, critics typically assign the authorship to some unknown Jew around 164
BC rather than the traditional date of approximately 540BC. 164 BC is the time
when most of the detailed prophecies are fulfilled. However, two prophecies in
the book of Daniel were fulfilled past the 164BC date: the coming of the Roman
empire to Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah as described in this article.
Even though there is no non-Biblical reference to Daniel during the 6th century
BC, because of detail historical accuracy that is not expected from an author
from the late date (2nd century BC) of the book of Daniel there is good reason
(Ref. 1 & Ref. 16) to consider the traditional date for Daniel as accurate.
Ref. 1 explains the different arguments for the traditional and critical dating
of the authorship of the book of Daniel.
3.7 Independent of Natural Intelligence
Both of the traditional and critical authorship dates are far
enough away from the time of Jesus to justify the claim that the author of
Daniel would not have any intelligence to suspect that the best candidate for
the Messiah would live at the time of Jesus.
None of the Gospel writers mention this most convincing prophecy
but they do mention many others. If they were using this Daniel 9:25 prophecy to
promote the early Christian Church them it would most likely be included in the
Gospels; therefore, most likely it was not used by the early Christian Church
which wrote the Gospels. If Jesus thought he was the Messiah because as an
ordinary human he read this passage then it is highly probable he would of
publicly stated quite often that this passage pointed to him as the Messiah. It
is highly probable that this information would have been passed to the early
Christian Church which wrote the Gospels. Thus, there is a strong basis for
claiming that ordinary humans (including Jesus if he was an ordinary human)
involved with this prophecy and it's fulfillment did not intentionally cause the
success of this fulfilled prophecy.
4. CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
Ref. 17 explains that the intervention of the super-natural is
identified by violations of indeterministic natural principle, which basically
means that the event in question has a low probability of occurring naturally.
The estimate is to be calculated conservatively in order to ensure the actual is
at least equal or higher than the estimate. The formula for making the
conservative estimate is listed below.
P = N * PA , PA = S / A
P: Conservative estimate of probability
N: Conservative estimate of number of attempts
PA: Conservative estimate of probability for one attempt
S: Conservative estimate of possible successful configurations
A: Conservative estimate of all possible configurations
Determining how straight forward each of the interpretations is
a requirement for determining a conservative estimate so the order of straight
forwardness is listed in the Table 1.
If the predicted date falls within the life of Jesus it is
considered successful. This means that a prediction for the birth of death of
Jesus had to come from one side where the prediction for the start of Jesus
ministry could come from either side. Thus, the start of Jesus ministry as the
predicted date requires an additional factor of 2 because it doubles the
successful outcomes. The conservative estimate of possible successful
configurations is determined by multiplying the number of days the prediction is
away from the predicted data by all the factors for the starting date, prophetic
year and ending date used.
The conservative estimate of all possible configurations is
considered the total duration of the prophecy which is 570 years or 208188 days.
Using the total duration of the prophecy is considered conservative because the
prophet was actually not constrained to predict within the duration. The prophet
could predict any duration, but had to at least predict the correct duration in
order to make a successful prediction. This duration used assumes the
traditional date for writing of Daniel, rather than the critical date of 164 BC.
Use of the critical date would increase the calculated probabilities by a factor
of 2.94.
Table 1 Straight forwardness order for Prophecy
|
Order
|
Description
|
Date* or Duration in Solar Days
|
Section
|
|
Starting date:
|
.
|
.
|
.
|
|
1
|
Nehemiah decree
|
3/4/-444
|
2.4.1
|
|
2
|
Ezra decree
|
7/5/-458
|
2.4.2
|
|
Prophetic year:
|
.
|
.
|
.
|
|
1
|
Solar year
|
365.242
|
2.3
|
|
2a
|
12 30 solar day months
|
360
|
2.3.2
|
|
2b
|
Lunar year
|
354
|
2.3.1
|
|
Ending date:
|
.
|
.
|
.
|
|
1
|
Triumphal entry
|
3/30/33,4/2/30
|
2.5.1
|
|
2
|
Start of Jesus ministry
|
1/1/29,1/1/26
|
2.5.1
|
|
3
|
Birth of Jesus
|
9/1/-5
|
2.5.1
|
* The first and second dates separated by commas assume
respectively a 33 or 30 AD crucifixion.
To make the probability calculation an assumption has to made
for when Jesus died. As discussed previously it is assumed to occur during
either 30 or 33AD. According to Ref. 7, 33AD is more supported by the data;
however, the calculation will be made for either case. Within each case it is
appropriate to take the lowest calculated probability because each probability
is conservative.
4.1 AD 30 Crucifixion
An AD 30 crucifixion puts the triumphal entry at 4/2/30 and the
start of Jesus' ministry in 26 AD. The ministry start date of 1/1/26 is used for
the start of Jesus' ministry because it gives the highest probability making it
conservative. According to Table 2, the estimated conservative probability is
0.0071. This actual start date of Jesus ministry may have actually occurred
closer to or even on the date of 7/5/26 which would further decrease this
probability.
Table 2 Probability Calculation for AD 30 Crucifixion
|
Prophecy start
|
Prophetic year
|
Prophecy end
|
Actual end
|
Factors
|
Days away
|
Probability
|
|
3/4/-444
|
354
|
4/23/25
|
1/1/26
|
1,3,2
|
253
|
0.0073
|
|
3/4/-444
|
360
|
3/30/33
|
4/2/30
|
1,3,1
|
-1093
|
NS
|
|
3/4/-444
|
365.242
|
3/5/40
|
4/2/30
|
1,1,1
|
-3625
|
NS
|
|
7/5/-458
|
354
|
8/23/11
|
4/2/30
|
2,3,1
|
6796
|
0.1959
|
|
7/5/-458
|
360
|
7/30/19
|
1/1/26
|
2,2,3
|
2346
|
0.1352
|
|
7/5/-458
|
365.242
|
7/5/26
|
1/1/26
|
2,1,4
|
-186
|
0.0071
|
*Factors are for; start date, prophetic year, end date
NS: Not successful
4.2 AD 33 Crucifixion
An AD 33 crucifixion puts the triumphal entry at 3/30/33 and the
start of Jesus ministry in 29 AD. The date of 1/1/29 is used for the start of
Jesus' ministry because it gives the highest probability making it conservative.
According to Table 3, the estimated conservative probability is 0.000014. Since
there actually is an unknown of two months in the prophecy start for this value,
the conservative estimate is 60 times higher.
Table 3 Probability Calculation for AD 33 Crucifixion
|
Prophecy start
|
Prophetic year
|
Prophecy end
|
Actual end
|
Factors
|
Days away
|
Probability
|
|
3/4/-444
|
354
|
4/23/25
|
1/1/29
|
1,3,2
|
1349
|
0.0389
|
|
3/4/-444
|
360
|
3/30/33
|
3/30/33
|
1,3,1
|
<1
|
0.000014
|
|
3/4/-444
|
365.242
|
3/5/40
|
3/30/33
|
1,1,1
|
-2532
|
NS
|
|
7/5/-458
|
354
|
8/23/11
|
3/30/33
|
2,3,1
|
7889
|
0.227
|
|
7/5/-458
|
360
|
7/30/19
|
3/30/33
|
2,3,1
|
4991
|
0.144
|
|
7/5/-458
|
365.242
|
7/5/26
|
3/30/33
|
2,1,1
|
2459
|
0.0236
|
*Factors are for; start date, prophetic year, end date
NS: Not successful
4.3 Summary
There are several reasonable interpretations of the Daniel 9:25
prophecy that are successful predictions for pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.
Since it is not know whether the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 30AD or 33 AD,
in order to be conservative, the highest probability reported by Section 4.1 or
4.2 which is 0.0071 will be considered as the conservative estimate for the
probability of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy occurring. Within these unknowns is the
possibility that the prediction was essentially exact because a comparisons
matched to the day.
4. ANALOGY
The probability of fulfilling of this prophecy occurring can be
visually understood by relating the odds to the timeline shown in Figure 1. If
the author Daniel was just an ordinary human then essentially the placement of
the set of three bold vertical lines (representing Daniel's prediction) would be
as if a blind folded man was confined to mark these lines within the 570 year
period. These 3 lines represent a 3 line marker. In this analogy it would not be
known which of the three lines the man is considering, but at least it is known
that he is thinking of one of the three. Visually one can see that most likely
(probability 0.061) he would not hit the target of Jesus lifetime. Hitting the
bullseye by one of the lines falling directly on the birth, start or and of
Jesus ministry is even more unlikely.
Considering that God may have influenced the author of Daniel is
like considering that the man may have peeked through his blind fold. When an
unbiased person would observe such a target with the bold lines located as shown
in Figures 1, this person would naturally think that the man had peeked through
the blind fold. Considering that the Neh. 2 date is the best candidate for the
starting date and 33AD is the best candidate for the crucifixion (ref. 7) makes
a strong case to an unbiased observer that the blind folded man must have peeked
and intended to place the center line exactly on the center (probability
0.000014) on the bullseye. This is analogous to concluding that Daniel 9:25
indicates that God must have influenced the author of Daniel and intended to
point to Jesus as the Messiah.
It should be pointed out that it is not as if a bunch of blind
folded children are playing pin the tail on the donkey. In this case with enough
players eventually one non-peeking blind folded child would hit the bullseye.
There is only one OT prediction of the coming time of the Messiah and a straight
forward analysis indicates it points directly to Jesus, clearly the best known
candidate.
If an image is not visible above, click here
Figure 1 Timeline for Predicting Coming Time of Messiah
6. CRITICISM AND REBUTTALS
6.1 Common Criticism from Academia and Hinrichs Rebuttal
The common approach by academia to this remarkable prophecy is
to avoid it all together. Typically, the critics claim (12,13) that Daniel is
just presenting a modification of Jeremiah's prophecy (Ref. Jeremiah 25:11)
which Daniel mentions at the beginning of Chapter 9 in verse 2. However, verse 2
just states Daniel was thinking of Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years for the
captivity for Israel. Daniel's prophecy in 9:25 is quite clear, it specifically
says the starting point is the issuing of a decree and the ending point is the
Messiah which are completely different designations than the captivity that
Jeremiah's prophecy was referring to. Thus, this approach from academia is
avoiding the obvious and straight forward interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and
proposes an interpretation that has no objective basis. It is used so that the
secular universities can altogether avoid this remarkable prophecy; thus,
achieve their goal of appearing to completely explain the origin of the Bible
without the intervention of the super-natural. However, the students do not even
get a chance to evaluate the data for themselves. All this approach objectively
indicates is that the critics who propose this idea think that there is
something in this passage worth hiding.
6.2 Lippard Criticism:
The Lippard Criticism, which comes from internet Ref. 11,
acknowledges the obvious interpretation and attempts to dismiss it based upon
alleged problems which are presented in the following discussion. Rebuttals are
given so that the reader can evaluate the data and the best arguments from the
two opposing positions. This criticism is edited by Jeffrey Lowder, authored by
Rod Berry who relied on work from Jim Lippard (15).
Jim Lippard's article is copyrighted with the following
permission for use: This text copyright (c) 1993 by Jim Lippard, 2930 E. 1st
St., Tucson, AZ 85716 (lippard@rtd.com). Permission is granted to redistribute
this file electronically provided this notice is retained. Quotations from his
article are made under the provisions of the above permission.
6.3 Beginning of Lippard Criticism
A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many
evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the book of Daniel.
It is probably no exaggeration to say that this prophecy, more than any other,
convinces Christians that Jesus was the Messiah.
Hinrichs objection:
The critics complain the Messianic prophecies are too vague
which is the case for many of them; however, the Daniel 9:25 prophecy is a clear
specification of the time when the Messiah would come. Instead of observing the
obvious, they look the other way to starting dates that do not even fit the
requirement specified by Daniel. In addition, the critics dismiss the messianic
prophecies of the New Testament by claiming they could have been concocted up by
the Early Christian Church. This is true for most messianic prophecies of the
New Testament; however, this Daniel prophecy could not have been concocted up
and is an accurate prediction as explained in Section 4.
On the other hand application of the technique used in Section 4
may estimate probabilities of essentially 1.0 for many of the OT messianic
prophesies mention in the Gospels because many of these prophecies require quite
symbolic or loose interpretations in order to make the events of Jesus described
in the Gospel qualify as fulfillment of the corresponding OT passage. In
addition, many of these other prophecies could of been concocted which would
invalidate the probability calculation because independence of natural
intelligence could not be established for these prophecies.
6.4 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a
form of the Hebrew word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians
to mean seven years rather than seven days. Thus "seventy weeks" in
verse 24 is interpreted to mean seventy periods of seven years, or 490 years,
"seven weeks" in verse 25 is interpreted to mean 49 years,
"sixty-two weeks" in verses 25 and 26 is interpreted to mean 434
years, and "one week" in verse 27 is interpreted to mean seven years.
The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem."
Hinrichs objection:
This translation in Section 3.2 is straightforward. 9:2 show
Daniel is thinking of years and the Hebrew word "shabua" interpreted
here as "weeks" does literally mean "seven".
6.5 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
A decree described in the Bible to rebuild the temple in
Jerusalem is found in:
Hinrichs objection:
The decree in Daniel 9 refers to the rebuilding of Jerusalem not
the temple or house of God.
6.6 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. These verses describe the
decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and contemporary of Daniel, in 538 B.C.E.
Hinrichs objection:
These passages refer to rebuilding the temple not Jerusalem.
6.7 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
"Seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," or 483 years, after
this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years too soon for Jesus. So Christians
must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25 with that of Cyrus, and they
do. What other decrees are available? Josh McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three
alternatives: a decree of Darius described in the book of Ezra, a decree of
Artaxerxes described in Ezra, and a decree of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah.
The decree of Darius, described in Ezra 6:1-9, was to conduct a search of the
archives to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the
construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money.
Hinrichs objection:
Ezra 6:1-9 refers to rebuilding the temple not Jerusalem.
6.8 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
This occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see Ezra 4:24), which would put
the coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus. The decree of
Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28 allows for the people of Israel to
return to Jerusalem, taking with them various support from the royal treasury.
This decree was issued in 458 B.C.E. (see Ezra 7:7), which would put the coming
of the Messiah at 26 C.E. This works fairly well if you take the end of the
"sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of Jesus' ministry, though most
Christians take the end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in
verse 26 of the Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off." Most
Christians reject this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being
the appropriate starting point for the prophecy. One exception is Gleason
Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues that Ezra 9:9 implies that Ezra was
given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, despite the
fact that they were not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 1:3).
Ezra 9:9 states that God has not forsaken the Jews but has given them a chance
"to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a
wall in Judah and Jerusalem."
Hinrichs objection:
Ezra 9:9 is just a prayer, not a decree but it does say that
"the kings of Persia ... gave us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem". Thus,
this passage implies that there may have been a decree given by Artaxerxes to
Ezra in 458 BCE. It just may have not been mentioned in Ezra 7.
6.9 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
In defense of the end point of the "sixty-two weeks"
being the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer
points out that verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's being
"cut off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily immediately
after it. The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:1-6 is
really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah letters of safe
conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber to rebuild the gates of the
temple and the walls of Jerusalem.
Hinrichs objection:
Since paper were issued this event should be considered a
decree. The critic only includes the V.8 information and leaves out the V.5
information which shows that part of the request is for rebuilding Jerusalem
which is the starting point for the prophecy. There is no other decree in the OT
for rebuilding Jerusalem so it is straight forward to use Neh. 2 to define the
starting point. In addition, the rest of Neh. shows that he did go onto rebuild
Jerusalem. Also, Ref. 7 points out that the Hebrew of Daniel 9:25, though not
requiring a decree, does require at least command.
6.10 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
This occurred in 445 B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at
39 C.E., too late for Jesus, who is believed to have been crucified some time
between 29 and 33 C.E. Despite these flaws, most evangelical Christians adopt
this as the appropriate decree because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.
In order to make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point 483
years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry or at the time of
the crucifixion, something other than a 365-day year must be used. The most
popular such calculation, due to Sir Robert Anderson and promoted by Josh
McDowell, is to adopt a "360- day prophetic year"--an invention of
Anderson based on his reading of Revelation 11:23, where he equates 42 months
with 1260 days, giving 30 days per month. Using "prophetic years" puts
the end of the 483-year period at 32 C.E., believed by many to be the year of
the crucifixion. Robert Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in
this calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1) Revelation 11:23
does not justify the invention of the "prophetic year," because there
is no indication that 1260 days is said to be exactly 42 months (it could be
41.5 rounded up),
Hinrichs objection:
Rev. 11:2 does say 42 months. Granted it does not say 42.00000
etc... but expecting so is not realistic. Also, in Section 3.3 as pointed out in
Section 3.3.2, the only place where the OT designates days to months, 30 days
are assigned.
6.11 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
(2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with the seasons, and
the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or three years to their 354- day
lunar year, giving them an average year length of about 365 days, and
Hinrichs objection:
Section 3.3.2 shows that even according to rationale critical
scholars use, the position that Daniel may have been thinking of a constant 30
day month is acceptable.
It is not necessarily appropriate to fix some intercalculation
process (technique for keeping year in synch with seasons) into Daniel's
thinking. He very well may not have been aware of a consistent systematic one.
In this case, it would be a straight forward conclusion that he was thinking of
a constant year which may have very well been 360 days. To insist upon including
intercalculated periods that Daniel may not have even been aware of is like
insisting upon that he was thinking of some calendar system that he was not
aware of like the Julian calendar.
6.12 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
(3) the present consensus on the date of the crucifixion is 30
C.E. rather than 32 C.E.
Hinrichs objection:
The 30CE date is conservatively used in the estimate for the
probability.
6.13 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years,
which do have biblical justification ( Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:3-7,
18-22). Every seventh year is a sabbatical year. Newman uses information from
the first book of Maccabees, which has reference to an observance of a
sabbatical year, to calculate that 163-162 B.C.E. was a sabbatical year and
therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the Daniel prophecy, falls in the
seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442 B.C.E. If this is the first sabbatical cycle
in the count, the sixty-ninth is 28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion
falls in.
Hinrichs objection:
There is no reference to special sabbatical years mentioned in
the immediate context. Use of sabbatical years is not as straight forward as any
of the prophetic years used in Section 4 because it (7 years) is a more awkward
and uncommon time unit.
6.14 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
In response to the criticism that the prophecy says that the
Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks, Newman says that in
conventional Jewish idiom "after" means "after the beginning
of." There are further problems for all of the above interpretations, which
Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost among Sigal's criticisms
is that the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew Bible places a division between
the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," meaning that rather than
stating that the Messiah will come after the combined time periods, he will come
after the "seven weeks" alone.
Hinrichs objection:
The "athnac" (major disjunctive punctuation mark) was
a massoretic addition and would not have been part of the original text; thus,
it only shows the interpretation of certain men (whether in the ninth or first
century), without furnishing any guarantee for it's correctness. The Septuagint
which was developed 250-150 BC does translate the seven weeks and sixty two
weeks as continuous making a total of sixty nine weeks between the decree to
restore Jerusalem and Messiah the Prince. In addition, to place a brake between
the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks is foreign to the context and make no
sense. This would mean it would take 434 years to build the plaza and moat.
Also, it means that the anointed one would have lived for 434 years which does
not make sense. Thus, the most straight forward interpretation of the Hebrew is
to translate the seven weeks and sixty two weeks as continuous and it is the
only interpretation that makes sense. It is not unusual for the Massoretes to
place a major disjunctive punctuation mark such as an "athnac" where
normally one would not expect it. Several example of this phenomenon are Gen.
7:13; 25:20; Exod. 35:23; Lev. 16:2; Isa. 49:21; 66:19; Num. 28:19 (7).
6.15 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
Another criticism Sigal makes is that the Hebrew text does not
put a definite article in front of the word "Messiah" (or
"anointed one"). The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is
translated with these facts in mind, and it gives the Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:
Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and
your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone
for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and
prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that
from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of
an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks
it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after
the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing;
and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war;
desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one
week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease;
and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the
decreed end is poured out on the desolator.
Hinrichs objection:
The Hebrew text says "anointed prince" which is as
good as the Hebrew gets for pointing to the Messiah. Daniel 9 is the only place
in the Old Testament where the KJV uses the term Messiah.
6.16 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks"
goes with the rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the Messiah.
This interpretation explains why "seven weeks and sixty- two weeks"
are given separately, rather than simply stating "sixty-nine weeks."
Most apologists are either unaware of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation, but
Robert Newman (1990, p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such
punctuation may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and
that the structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.
Hinrichs objection:
As mentioned in the previous objection the most straight
interpretation of the Hebrew is to translate the seven weeks and sixty two weeks
as continuous and it is the only interpretation that makes sense. Thus, for the
Messiah or the rebuilding of Jerusalem the time span is sixty nine
"weeks".
6.17 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so
convincing as it might initially appear to someone presented only with one of
the interpretations that "works." It is not surprising that with four
choices for beginning points (the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, plus
the letters of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah),
Hinrichs objection:
Only one states a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The other that
implies a decree (Ezra 9:9) still works as a prophecy predicting Christ as the
Messiah. This critic obviously is aware by his other comments that the starting
point is the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem rather than the temple, but the
critic continues to refer to the decrees for the rebuilding of the temple.
6.18 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
several possible choices for end points (the birth, ministry,
and crucifixion of Jesus),
Hinrichs objection:
The effect of these options making more successful outcomes is
conservatively accounted for the in the probability calculation.
6.19 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
and at least three ways of counting (ordinary years,
"prophetic years," and sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found
for which Jesus fits the prophecy.
Hinrichs objection:
The effect of these options making more successful outcomes is
conservatively accounted for the in the probability calculation.
6.20 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
There are good reasons to reject each of these interpretations.
The first two choices for beginning points don't work for any offered
interpretations.
Hinrichs objection:
Only one is a explicit decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The first
two choices of the critic were accomplished by avoiding choices that were more
straight forward.
6.21 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
The Artaxerxes decree works for ordinary years with the ministry
of Jesus as the end point, but says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem. The
Artaxerxes letters work for sabbatical cycles with the crucifixion as an end
point, but they are not a decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Rather, they
gave Nehemiah safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the royal
forests.
Hinrichs objection:
Misrepresentation, the critic is ignoring the request in Neh.
2:5 which the King agreed to. The lumber was obviously for the walls of
Jerusalem. In addition, the rest of Nehemiah shows that he did go onto rebuild
Jerusalem.
6.22 Continuation of Lippard Criticism:
Finally, none of them take into consideration the Masoretic
punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates all of them as possible
interpretations of the text."
Hinrichs objection:
The Masoretic punctuation is an addition to the original text. A
straight forward interpretation of the original text is to translate the seven
weeks and sixty two weeks as continuous and it is the only interpretation that
makes sense.
6.23 Summary of Response to Criticisms
Each of the critics points have been directly addressed in a
straight forward manner. The common presentation by secular academia mentioned
in Section 6.1 completely ignores the straight forward interpretation of the
Daniel 9:25 prophecy. Such an approach can deny any truly fulfilled prophecy;
thus, is not falsifiable; therefore, of no value for objective critic of
prophecies.
In attempting to dismiss this prophecy, the Lippard Criticism
proposes alternative starting dates that do not fit as well with the starting
dates proposed by this article. This criticism is not successful because it
avoids the more straight forward interpretation. The Lippard Criticism also
complains about the legitimate unknowns involved with this prophecy such as the
definition of a prophetic year and the starting and ending dates. All successful
scientific predictions involve legitimate unknowns, but this does not render
them illegitimate. The effects of the unknown have been conservatively accounted
for in the estimated probability; thus, are properly considered.
7. CONCLUSION
Each of the critics points have been directly addressed. The
criticism addressed is the best that the extensive organization of critical
biblical scholars have to offer. The effects of the unknown have been
conservatively considered in determining the estimated probability of 0.0071.
This value is low enough to consider this prophecy as remarkable evidence that
points to Jesus as the Messiah. Within the unknowns there is clearly the
possibility that this prediction was essentially exact. As for as I am aware
(see Section 5 of Ref. 17), this probability is the lowest associated with any
major claims that there is a super natural intelligence that has intervened with
a purpose for humans. Thus, as far as I am aware, this evidence qualifies as
extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. Daniel's Messiah in a
remarkable way has survived a visit with the lions in the critic's den.
Essentially, on just the basis of the presumption that precise
and detail prophecy fulfillment is not possible, critics give the book of Daniel
a date of 164BC rather than 540BC. However, the one prophecy that specifically
points to a time is fulfilled in remarkable way well after 164BC. The remarkable
fulfillment of this prophecy shows that the critic's approach that the super
natural was not involved with the production of the Bible is a poor approach for
completely explaining the origin of the Bible..
7. HINRICHS REFERENCES
- McDowell, Daniel in the Critics Den
- Giesler, When Critic Ask
- Unger, Bible Handbook
- Walvoord, The Bible Commentary (Dallas Seminary)
- Ryrie, Footnotes for Study Bible
- Yamauchi, Edwin, Persia and the Bible, Baker
- Hoehner, Harold, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Zondervan
- Anderson, Sir Robert, The Coming Prince, Kregel Publications
- Goss, Glenn, Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Dallas Theological Seminary,
Dissertation, 1966
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap9-10.html#s2-4a_3b.
- Hauer, Young, An Introduction to the Bible, Prentice Hall, 1986
- John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Fortress
Press, 1993)
- Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, Intervarsity
Press, 1981
- http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/fabulous-prophecies.txt
- Archer, G., A Survey of the OT, Moody
- Hinrichs, S.C., Rationale Methodology for Identifying Super Natural Power
and Purpose, http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm
- Daniel, O.E., A Harmony of the Gospels, Baker
Return to Steve
Hinrichs home page