From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Questions for Rob Strom
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:36:52 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

I've been ruthlessly cleaning out my alt.messianic stuff, and I've come across
some items for which I am still quite interested in seeing some followup.  To
wit, I have not yet heard Rob Strom's view on Daniel 9:24-27.  I am most
curious to see what you have to say about it, Rob.

The following should help jog your memory:

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Date: 2 Mar 92 11:48:08 EST

#1269

>From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
>Subject:What did Daniel know and when did he know it (was Messianic Jewish Move
>ment)
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:57:07 GMT

>Well, I blush at your implication that my opinions about Daniel
>are more interesting than Rambam's or Aryeh Kaplan's.

They *are*, provided they are really yours, not derived from any rabbinic
commentaries.

>You will recall that my earlier posting <1992Jan2.162122.10109@watson.ibm.com>
>*did* have a little bit to say -- namely that I thought that
>the passages in question were referring to Cyrus, who as a real king,
>was correctly called "Messiah" (but not in the
>sense that the word is usually used today).  I also stated in
><1992Jan17.235506.15872@watson.ibm.com> that to
>the best of my recollection the book of Daniel was written
>the last of all the books in the Bible,
>around 150 BCE, so should be viewed as symbolic history
>rather than "prophecy".  The evidence for that (and here is
>where the scholarship comes in, because I'm talking from
>memory here) is the language, the descriptions which would
>be anachronistic if written much earlier, and imprecision
>about events in the distant past (which would have been
>events in the near past if the book were written earlier).

I think I can help you out here with information from neutral sources.

Daniel lived during the time of the Babylonian and Media-Persian empires.
He was young during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and old when he knew
Darius the Mede.

The Chaldean dynasty of Babylon included these kings:

		Nabopolassar	626-605 BC
		Nebuchadnezzar	605-562
		Evil-merodach	562-560
		Neriglissar	560-556
		Labashi-Marduk	556
		Nabonidus	556-539

After the Babylonian Empire was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians,
the following kings reigned over Media-Persia:

		Cyrus II*		559-530
		Cambyses		530-522
		Pseudo-Smerdis		522-521
		Darius I (Hystaspis)	521-486
		Xerxes I**		486-465
		Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465-423
		(et-cetera)

*king at the time Babylon was overthrown in 539 BC
**known in the Bible as Ahasuerus, the king at the time of Esther (Hadassah)
and Mordecai.

The decree to rebuild Yerushalayim was issued by Artaxerxes in 447 BC.

Concerning the meaning of the "weeks":  the word is shavua (or shabua, I guess
it depends on where you're from :-) ), or sh'vuah, meaning "sevened", seven,
a week, a week of years.  It is related to shava (shaba), "to seven oneself",
"repeat seven times" (sh'va [sh'ba], shiv'ah [shib'ah], seven/seven times).
What is translated "seventy weeks" might better have been translated
"seventy sevens".  The NAS Bible notes that it means seventy units of seven
(and so throughout the chapter, where "week" means "unit of seven").  I
checked the Menge Bible and found that it was translated as "Jahrwochen"
("weeks of years"), with a parenthetical explanation of what the original 
word means.  From a linguistical standpoint, it is pretty clear that it means
"units of seven years", or at the very least, "units of seven".

>So my request for time to do scholarship is not an attempt to
>avoid posting my personal opinion --- I have already
>posted my personal opinion.  Now I need to go and
>check whether the facts on which I based my personal
>opinion are correct.

What authority do you appeal to to decide it you are "correct"?  I want to
hear what *you* have to say!  So far, unless I've missed something, all
you've said is that you thought the language looked like something from
around 150 BCE, and that you don't really know what the numbers mean ...

>... I don't even have
>an opinion on how to interpret the numbers!
>I always thought that phrases like "70x7"
>were also idioms meaning "a large number".

... which is why I gave you some neutral hints from a secular historic source
regarding the time period and some translation input.  (BTW, that might not
be an unreasonable assumption in itself, although it seems doubtful that, if
it merely meant "a large number", the following verses would go on to break
down the 70 into smaller time periods, describing what would happen during
each one.)

>In the meantime, we can spawn a subthread on the
>question of when Daniel was written.

I think I pretty well answered that.

In any case, I'm hoping you won't feel compelled to go to some rabbinic
commentaries to find out how to answer here.  I have not and will not go to
any "Christian commentaries".  I'm just reading my Bible, and I happen to
know some history as well.  All I'm asking is for you to do the same thing:
Go spend some time reading Daniel for yourself (don't you just love how God
rescued the righteous who would not bend the knee to false gods, and how he
humbled Nebuchadnezzar!?), and then tell us what you think about the
prophetic visions.  Please avoid any rabbinic commentaries which might color
your understanding; I'm interested in what it means to you *apart* from their
steering.  I promise not to consult any commentaries, too.

Remember, the specific question had to do with the vision of the "weeks", but
your comments an any part of Daniel will be most interesting.

-- Bruce Tiffany

###############################################################################

Subject:Re: (Breaking the) Sabbath
Date: 18 Mar 92 08:46:03 EST

>Subject: Re: (Breaking the) Sabbath
>From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
>Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:43:17 GMT

>Bruce Tiffany asked me to speculate what I thought the
>Jewish Christians tried to preach to their fellow
>Jews --- which I interpreted as including "and which
>they rejected".  I listed a number of things, and then
>I claimed that they rejected kashruth and sabbath.

And I thank you for your response.  I only wanted to see what you would say.

But I am still waiting to hear what Daniel 9:24-27 is talking about (and any
other part of the book you care to comment on).  There was some dispute as to
when it was actually written, and whether or not it should be believed, but
you never did answer my question about what you think it means.

Again, *your* thoughts -- not those of Jewish or Christian commentators --
are solicited.  I will settle for "what the rabbis say it means" if you
really don't want to tell us what *you* think it means (the person who
originally asked about this -- and never got an answer -- was looking for
a rabbinic Jewish interpretation, and I believe Ken is still waiting to hear
"what the rabbis say") -- but I'd prefer your own views.

-- Bruce Tiffany