GOLGOTHA — Friday, 27 April, 31 A.D.: Chronological investigation

PART ONE

The Dating of Messiah’s Killing in the Old Testament

Introduction

Although messianism – the belief in a Divine Saviour of the world – is the spiritual inheritance of all nations, given that it arose at the same time as the beginning of the Adamic race (thus prior to the emergence of Israel in the historic arena), nevertheless the only revealed doctrine of the reformer of the human soul is to be found in the Old Testament. The promise to send a Redeemer of the original sin, the ´´Proto-Gospel´´, i.e., the first Good News, was communicated to Adam and Eve in Eden even before the moment of their Fall (see Gn.3:15) and then renewed to the biblical prophets (the ´´Covenant/Alliance´´). God’s plan to rehabilitate mankind includes three aims: Israel, the Nations other than the Jews, and the Church , whose histories converge on the Messiah’s coming into the world. The most detailed information about this apotheotic event comes from the Prophet Daniel: "(…), for he was not only wont to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass." (Fl.Jos.Ant.Jud.X/XI.7[267]). To be more precise, of all the Old Testament messianic texts, only the prophecy of the ‘Seventy Weeks’ (The Book of Daniel, 9:24-27) tells us exactly when the Messiah would arrive because it dates the promised time by means of a cryptic algorithm. The difficulties of calculation did not, however, prevent the Essenes (who expected the 70 weeks of Daniel to expire between 3 B.C. and 2 A.D., see BeR.SCECE/RQ, No.38, Tome10, Fascicule 2, pp.179-180; BeR.CC/8.1, pp.261-262) and the Synagogue scholars from locating the climax of the oracle in the epoch that corresponds whith the first century of the Christian era (the worst century in universal history). Moreover, one of the best surviving sources regarding messianic expectation during this time is ´´The Psalms of Solomon´´(probably written just after the Roman conquest of Judaea, in 63 B.C.), which reflect the common view of a righteous, reigning Messiah who would militarily reestablish Israel’s sovereignty and restore a just government over the nation (acc. to Ps.Sol.XVII.23-36 = APOT-II, pp.649-650 & 17:21-32 = OTP-II, pp.667).

The historical writings recount that in that period the Jews’ expectations of the prophecy’s fulfilment had reached paroxysmal levels. The Romano – Jewish scholar, priest, commander and historian Flavius Josephus (1st-2nd century A.D.), relates the following: " But what more than all else incited them to the war [against Rome] was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race,(…)." (Fl.Jos.Bel.Jud.VI/V.4[312-313]). The Roman historians Tacitus (1st-2nd century A.D.) and Seutonius (1st-2nd century A.D.) made similar pronouncements: "(…); the majority (of the Hebrews) firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judaea should possess the world. (…)." (Tac.His.V/XIII) and " There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.(…)." (Sue.Vit.Caes.Vespasianus VIII/IV[5]). Unfortunately, both camps attributed a political role to this mysterious figure, and so neither of them in fact succeeded in identifying him correctly; the Romans (including Flavius Josephus, who was obedient to Roman rule) believed him to be one of the commanders of the victorious legions (Titus or sooner Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor in Judaea itself), and the Jews – devoted to the idea of a restoration of the historical Davidean kingdom – forecast his appearance in the near future. The end of this illusion was to occur almost sixty years later, however, when the entire nation followed the enigmatic insurgent Simon bar Kochba (Kokhba) or Koziba (declared the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva/Akiba ben Yoseph) in a disastrous revolt. The feeling of national resignation, which only took hold in Jewish society as late as the middle of the third century A.D., allowed the famous Talmudist Rab / Rav = Abba Arika (2nd-3rd century A.D.) to acknowledge: " (…) The son of David will come only when the monarchy [of Rome] will spread over Israel for nine months, as it is said ‘Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who travails has brought forth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel’(Mi.5:2) " (Tal.Bav.Sanhedrin 11:1-2/I.104,A[Fol.98B]) but, " All of the ends [=all deadlines /predestined dates for the coming of the Messiah] have passed,(…)."(Tal.Bav.Sanhedrin 11:1-2/I.95,A.[Fol.97B]). Likewise, "Rabbi Nehumias (who lived in the generation preceding the birth of Christ = mid-first century B.C.) declared that the time foretold by Daniel for the Messiah would be in the next fifty years: " (…), non posse ultra eos quinquaginta annos protrahi tempus Messiae a Daniele significatum. (…). (GrH.VRC: V/XIV, p.213). From a wider perspective, " A Tannaite authority of the house of Elijah [said], For six thousand years the world will exist. For two thousand it will be desolate, two thousand years [will be the time of] Torah, and two thousand years will be the days of the Messiah. " (Tal.Bav.Sanhedrin 11:1/I.89, A.-B.[Fol.97A]. This timeline confirms that the Messiah has already come (at the beginning of the Christian Era). Furthermore, the Syriac Stoic philosopher Mara bar Serapion wrote a letter from prison to his son (after 73 A.D.), in which he mentioned the death and the teaching of the ´´Wise King´´ of the Jews (a synonym for Jesus / the Messiah, designed to escape the notice of the Roman censors): " (…) For what advantage did the Athenians gain by the murder of Socrates, the recompense of which they received in famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because in one hour their country was entirely covered with sand? Or the Jews by the death of their wise king, because from that same time their kingdom was taken away? For with justice did God make recompense to the wisdom of these three: for the Athenians died of famine; and the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea without remedy; and the Jews desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every country. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor the wise king, because of the laws which he promulgated. (…)." (CuW.SS, pp.73-74). Thus, the Jewish and pagan sources showed that the period of waiting for the reign of Messiah had already lapsed by the first century B.C.. It must be said that the Messianic movements of the first century, which were mainly inspired by the prophetic texts of the Bible (see Chap.I/3.1: a), enjoyed considerable support in the following pseudepigraphic writings: ´´The Book of Enoch / 1 Enoch´´ (see APOT-II, pp.163-281; OPT-I, pp.5-89), ´´The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs´´ (see APOT-II, pp.282-367; OTP-I, pp.775-828), ´´The Sibylline Oracles´´ (see APOT-II, pp.368-406; OTP-I, pp.317-472), ´´The Psalms of Solomon´´ (see APOT-II, pp. 625-652; OTP-II, pp.639-670); ´´The Apocalypse of Ezra / 4 Ezra´´ (see APOT-II, pp.542-624; OTP-I, pp.517-559), ´´The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch / 2 Baruch´´ (see APOT-II, pp.470-526; OTP-I, pp.615-652), etc. . Moreover, the doctrine held by the community of pious Jews at Qumran expounded a highly evolved concept of the celestial Liberator: He will be the priest and monarch of an eternal spiritual kingdom, founded on peace and justice. The reference texts are ´´The Damascus Document´´ (see CD-A,B/DSS, pp.550-581 & PTSDSSP-2, pp.4-57; FZW, Text A,B/DJS, pp.1-20 & IX-LXIV or APOT-II, pp.785-834; 4Q266-273/DSS, pp.580-627 or DJD: XVIII, pp.23-198 & PTSDSSP-2, pp.59-75 + Fragments PTSDSSP-3, pp.1-185; 5Q12/DSS, pp.1134-1135 or DJD: III, p.181 & PTSDSSP-2, pp.76-77; 6Q15 /DSS, pp.1152-1155 or DJD: III, pp.128-131 & PTSDSSP-2, pp.78-79), ´´Thanksgiving Hymns´´ (see 1QH/DSS, pp.146-203), ´´The Rule of the Community´´ (see 1Q28/DSS, pp.68-99 & 4Q255-264/DSS, pp.510-545; 5Q11/DSS, pp.1132-1135), ´´The Rule of the Congregation´´ (see 1Q28a/DSS, pp.98-103), ´´The Rule of Benedictions´´ (see 1Q28b/DSS, pp.104-109), ´´Commentary on Isaiah´´ (see 4Q161/DSS, pp.312-317), ´´Florilegium´´ (see 4Q174/DSS pp.352-355), ´´Testimonia´´ (see 4Q175/DSS, pp.354-357), ´´The Son of God´´ / ´´The Aramaic Apocalypse [of Daniel]´´ (see 4Q246/DSS, pp.492-495), ´´Commentary on Genesis A´´ (see 4Q252/DSS, pp.500-505), ´´Sefer ha-Milhamah´´ (see 4Q285/DSS, pp.640-643 & 11Q14/DSS, pp.1208-1211), ´´Prayer of Enosh´´ (see 4Q369/DSS, pp.730-733), ´´Hodayot´´(see 4Q427/DSS, pp.892-899 & 4Q431/DSS, pp.904-907), ´´The War Scroll´´ (see 4Q491/DSS, pp.970-979), ´´ Messianic Apocalypse´´ (see 4Q521/DSS, pp.1044-1047), ´´Elect of God´´ / ´´Birth of Noah´´ (see 4Q534/DSS, pp.1070-1073), ´´Apocryphon of Levi´´ (see 4Q541/DSS, pp.1078-1081), ´´The Coming of Melchizedek´´ (see 11Q13/DSS, pp.1206-1209), ´´Gabriel’s Revelation´´ (see Haz.Gab., pp.11-30). Currently, there are many studies on Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha and on the Messianic Expectations in the Qumran Writings (see ZiJ.MTQ, pp.1-480; ChJ.QM, pp.1-203; KnM.SM, pp.3-511, etc.) Paradoxically, however, the length of Daniel’s ‘weeks’ could not be rigorously decrypted even after its close (in the century mentioned above). Every attempts on the part of Mosaic or Christian theologians, undertaken over the course of more than 2,500 years, has merely but approximated it in various erroneous ways. How true was the warning ‘Know therefore and understand ’ (Dn.9:25), both for Daniel himself and his epigones! Consequently, only a perspicacious approach of the sophisticated chronology from this abstruse oracle (unique in the Old Testament), would be capable of allowing hermeneutics to discover the exact mathematical solution. The historical framework that fostered the resurgence of messianic hope in the consciousness of Israel was the Babylonian Exile. Far from Jerusalem and the Temple, the life and thought of the Jews underwent religious purification and national maturation. The rediscovery of the vocation of the Chosen People against the backdrop of divine forgiveness, precisely in the humiliating circumstances of deportation, represented a miracle that God performed through his faithful servant Daniel. After the conquest of Babylon on 16 Tishri/12 October 539 B.C. (BM 35382/ABC – Chronicle 7, pp.109-110), by King Cyrus II of Persia (559-530 B.C.)- who it was prophesied would release the Jews from captivity (see Is.45:13)- the parallel with the prophecy about the end of the seventyyear exile (see Is.25:11-12; 29:10) was stringent. This caused Daniel, the soothsayer and high dignitary at the court of Babylon as early as the time of the Chaldean emperor Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.), to implore through a famous prayer (see Dn.9:4-19) the mercy of his protector Adonai Elohim (see Dn.9:3), whose personal name Jehovah = YHWH / YAHAWAHA (see Dn.9:2, 4, 10, 13-14, 21) already knew from Isaiah’s account: ‘I am Jehovah, that is my name’ (Is.42:8), that the rebellious Jewish people might be absolved and the land around the ruined Jerusalem be rebuit.

Note. The consonantal Tetragrammaton YHWH must be accorded particular reverence since, as an attribute that individualises God, it exists eternally and is valid for all people (see Ex.3:15). In order to guard the sanctity of the Name YHWH, the practices of Judaism have established that it should not be pronounced but read as Adonay (´´My Lord´´). The Kabbalistic tradition holds that its correct vocalisation was known only to a few chosen people in each generation, and therefore it is natural to suppose that Daniel must have been among their number. Some modern editions of the Bible translate the Old Testament Tetragrammaton as Jehovah or Yahweh. As for me, I received God’s revelation that the true pronunciation of YHWH is YAHAWAHA. Although YHWH is an untranslatable proper name, God’s foreknowledge saw to it that it would still have a meaning in Hebrew, as a sign of the Covenant that He was later to make with the Chosen People. Thus, YHWH corresponds to a combination of the Hebrew verbs HYH (pronounced hayah #1933/1934: to be) and HWH (pronounced hawah #1961: to become). It is observed that the two verbs (written in angular form) can be connected diametrically along the ´H-H´ axis, by a rotating overlap: the H at the beginning of the one becomes the H at the end of the other and vice verse, i.e.,

we obtain either the consonantal Name YHWH (underlined letters) or the vocalised Name YAHAWAHA (all letters). As such, from a semantico-syntactic point of view, the Tetragrammaton YHWH / YAHAWAHA is a causative-factitive syntagma that signifies ´´He who IS´´ & ´´He who Causes to Become´´(in the sense of existence) = the Creator of Life: ‘I AM THAT I AM ’. At Horeb, during the miracle of the burning bush, God Himself revealed to Moses the meaning of His Name in Hebrew: " And Moses said to God, Behold [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me to you. And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. "(Ex.3:13-15).

This circular reading is supported by own words of Jesus = Messiah: " I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, [the] first and [the] last, the beginning and the end." (Rv.22:13).

Even in heaven, all proper names, like the names of God the Father and of God the Son, are still in Hebrew: " And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing upon mount Zion, and with him a hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having his name and the name of his Father written upon their foreheads." (Rv.14:1).

The value of YAHAWAHA in Jewish Gematria (a hermeneutical technique of interpreting a word or phrase according to the numerical values of their letters) is equal to: 1320, because It is certain that Adam and Eve knew the personal name of God (see Gn.4:1), and Seth confirms this, because he introduced, after the birth of his son Enosh, the custom of invoking the Divine Name (as a mode of worship): " (…). Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah / the LORD." (Gn.4:26).

400+1+8+1+900+1+8+1=1320

(according to the Gematria Calculator: Gematrix.org)

Obs. Although the classical editions of the Septuagint replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios (Theos) ( Marya / Peshitta and Dominus (Deus) / Vulgata), many of its early copies included, in the midst of the Greek text, the original Name of God written in Hebrew letters: YHWH (see Pap. Fouad Nr.266; Ms.LXX VTS 10a, b; Ms.AqBurkitt / AqTaylor; Sym.Pap.Vindob. G. 39777; Ms.Ambrosiano O 39 sup., et al.).

* * *

The divine answer was delivered by the angel Gabriel in the form of the ‘Seventy Weeks’ prophecy.

Chapter I. The Messianic Oracle in the Book of Daniel

1. Generalities

This famous riddle of Biblical chronology is a fragment from the ‘Seventy Weeks’ prophecy as a whole, which was revealed to Daniel in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede (see Dn.9:1-2, 20-27). At that time, Daniel was meditating upon the imminent end of the Babylonian exile, as he had already discovered "(…) by the books that the number of the years, whereof the word of Jehovah / the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishment of the desolations of Jerusalem, was seventy years. (Dn.9:2). Jeremiah’s famous prevision And this whole land shall become a waste, an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jr.25:11) was first pronounced in a speech given in Jerusalem in September/October 605 B.C., (when King Jehoiakim surrendered the first hostages: see Jr.25:1-2 in correlation with Dn.1:1-4) and was then repeated in a letter to the leaders of the Jews who had been exiled to Babylon along with King Jeconiah / Jehoiachin (Jr.29:1-14), after the conquest of Jerusalem on 2 Adar/16 March 597 B.C. (see 2Kg.24:8-16; 2Chr.36:9-10; Jr.24:1;29:1-2 and BM 21946/ABC, p.102; Fl.Jos.Ant.Jud.X/VII.1). The epistle, which must also have been read by high dignitary Daniel, as it had arrived at the court of Nebuchadnezzar through Zedekiah’s royal couriers, laid out the end of the banishment: "For thus saith Jehovah / the LORD: When seventy years shall be accomplished for Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in bringing you back to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith Jehovah / the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you in your latter end a hope. And ye shall call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you; and ye shall seek me and find me, for ye shall search for me with all your heart, and I will be found of you, saith Jehovah / the LORD. And I will turn your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith Jehovah/the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I have caused you to be carried away captive. (Jr.29:10-14). Intuiting that the promised end was nigh, Daniel penitently implored divine mercy (see Dn.9:2-3) for the granting of a collective reprieve. He acknowledged both sin and guilt of Israel, which had been committed in two ways: first by infringement of the Mosaic Law, and secondly by disobedience to the prophets who came after Moses. His impassioned prayer (see Dn.9:4-19) concludes with one of the most beautiful and moving supplications in the Bible: Lord, hear! Lord, forgive! Lord, hearken and do! defer not, for thine own sake, O my God! for thy city and thy people are called by thy name." (Dn.9:19). The answer was promptly delivered by the angel Gabriel, who revealed himself to Daniel in a humanlike form (Heb.‘ha’ish Gabriy’el’ = ‘the man Gabriel’) and in swift flight, at the very moment of the evening oblation (see Dn.9:20-21). The symbolism is remarkable: God sent His messenger precisely at the moment of the second daily sacrifice (see Ex.29:38-39) as a reminder of a previous miraculous intervention = the manifestation of divine omnipotence on Mount Carmel at the request of Elijah (see 1Kg. 18:36-39), which also occurred at the hour of the vesperal sacrificial ceremony. The colloquy was cordial, since the two interlocutors had already met on the occasion of the so-called ´´Ram and Goat´´ vision (see Dn.9:21, correlated with 8:16-27). After an introduction, in which he laid out his intentions (see Dn.9:22-23), the ´angelus interpres´ unfolded the content of the prophecy (see Dn.9:23-27).

2. Text of the ‘Seventy Weeks’ prophecy

"24. Seventy weeks are apportioned out upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal the vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies. 25. Know therefore and understand: From the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. The street and the moat shall be built again, even in troublous times. 26a. And after the sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing; 26b. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with an overflow, and unto the end, war, the desolations determined. 27. And he shall confirm a covenant with the many [for] one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations [there shall be] a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate."

It should be noted that the entire prophecy focuses only on Israel and Jerusalem, providing a Timetable for their salvation through the Sacrifice of the Messiah. Namely, the angel informs Daniel that ‘seventy weeks’ have been decreed for his people and city (as a period of probation for the nation of Israel), and then gives a detailed but cryptic description of those weeks: verse 24 lays down the length and the goals of the prophecy whereas verses 25-27 reveal the events and the periods of the plan for Israel’s rehabilitation. It is noteworthy that the ‘70 weeks’ were divided for emphasis into three unequal segments: [‘7 weeks’+ ‘62 weeks’ ] (vv.25-26a) + [ ‘1 week’ ] (vv.26b-27). Of these verses we shall analyse only v.25 and v.26a, which make up the so-called Oracle of the ´´Sixty-nine Weeks´´, as a distinct quantum of time. It is obvious, however, that the interpretation of these must be made in the context of verse 24. The basic versions of the Danielic Oracle (in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Latin and English, according to the Reference Literature) are couched as follows:

Biblia Hebraica (Kennicottiana)

Transliteration (Consonantal text with left-to-right formatting):

" Wtd‘ wtškl mn-mṣ’ dbr lhšyb wlbnwt yrwšlm ‘d-mšy? ngyd šb‘ym šb‘h wšb‘ym ššym wšnym tšwb wnbnth rḥwb wḥrwṣ wbṣwq h‘tym w’ḥry hšb‘ym ššym wšnym ykrt mšyḥ w’yn lw "

Translation:

" Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed (lit.‘Messiah’), a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again ,with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more ; "

Septuaginta (Gottingensis / LXX-Th.)

Transliteration:

" Kai gnōsē kai synēseis: apo exodou logou tou apokrithēnai kai tou oikodomēsai Ierousalēm heōs Christou hēgoumenou hebdomades hepta kai hebdomades hexēkonta duo; kai epistrepsei kai oikodomēthēsetai plateia kai teichos, kai ekkenōthēsontai hoi kairoi. kai meta tas hebdomades tas hexēkonta duo exolethreuthēsetai chrisma, kai krima ouk estin en autō; "

Translation:

" And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ, the prince ( lit. ‘until [the time] of Christ / of the Anointed One*, of the prince**’) [there shall be] seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the then [the time] / it (= he ?) shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one (lit. ‘[an] anointing ’) shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: " ( * Subjective Genitive; ** Appositional Genitive: Genitive in Simple Apposition )

Peshitta (Leidensis)

Transliteration:

" wtd‘ wtstkl mn mpqnh dmlt’ lmhpk wlmbnyw l’wršlm wlm’t’ mšyḥ’ mlk’ šbw‘’ šb‘’ wšbw‘’ štyn wtryn nhpwk wnbn’ l’wršlm šwqyh wplṭwth lšwlm zbn’ wbtr šbw‘’ štyn wtryn ntqṭl mšyḥ’ wl’ ’yt lh "

Translation:

" You must know and understand, from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed king (or perhaps ‘the Messiah’), there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. He (=?) will return and rebuild Jerusalem with its markets and its plazas (lit. ‘broad places’) when the time has fully come (lit. ‘in the fullness of time’). After sixty-two weeks the anointed one will be killed and will have nothing. "

Vulgata (Sixto - Clementina)

The Standard Text:

" Scito ergo, et animadverte: ab exitu sermonis, ut iterum aedificetur Jerusalem, usque ad Christum ducem, hebdomades septem, et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt: et rursum aedificabitur platea, et muri in angustia temporum. Et post hebdomades sexaginta duas occidetur Christus: et non erit ejus populus qui eum negaturus est. "

Translation:

" Know thou, therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ, the Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls, in straitness of times. And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his."

(Obs.The Greek/Latin term ‘hebdomades’ signifies ´´periods of seven ´´ = ´´sevens´´ or ´´ heptads ´´ and by extension ‘weeks’.)

This oracular schema shows that the history in question had been predetermined by God, and that the beginning and end of its timeline were inevitable. Consequently, it may be understood that the ´´Sixty-nine Weeks´´ (of years) must be analysed in accordance with the historical facts of that period. Since both verse 25 and verse 26a have a high prophetic density, explanation of them entails enormous difficulties and gives rise to countless polemics. And that is why we need to use sound hermeneutical rules and principles when interpreting the oracle in question. The present study aims to rise above the confusion of the conflicting arguments, putting forward an original solution, which applies the principle of an unbiased reading of the religious, scholarly and traditional sources, without laying down denominational or geographical dividing lines. In this sense, the author’s strategic option is to invoke historically validated theses and to juxtapose personal opinions with the most important information, hypotheses or reasonings, which currently definite the wider sphere of the controversies around the life and work of the prophet Daniel. Such an approach to prophecy takes into account both its original context and what we know of later fulfilment since Daniel received from the Holy Spirit further information about the future and, therefore, the interpretation must not be limited only to what is expressed in text. Briefly, the purpose of this exegesis is to unfold as faithfully as possible the terminology, characters and temporal structure of the passage in Dn.9:25-26a, based on a literal, grammatical and historical interpretation of the text, because the truth of Daniel is to be found in exact prediction.

N.B.

As a rule, semantic investigations of the Danielic expressions are correlated with the socalled Masoretic text (MT) / ´´Textus Masoreticus´´ . It was created between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. as an answer to a pressing problem of the Jewish community that arose after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem: the consonantal biblical text was ambiguous, and most Jews didn't know how to read it anymore, as Hebrew had become a dead language. To save the Hebrew Bible from disintegrating into competing interpretations, the rabbinic school began a major project: that of transcribing the oral tradition. For this purpose, the Masoretes (a group of traditionalist scribes) invented an intricate system of punctuation (vowel points and accents), which precisely defined how to read the Scriptures..Therefore, MT is a readable transcription < Qere > (from Ar.´what is read´) of the consonantal biblical text < Ketib > (from Ar.´what is written´). On it too are based the commentaries that will be exposited below, although in some cases ( see Chap.I/3.1) the amendments of the Masoretes need to be re-examined in order not to arrive at a distortion of the original sense of the sacred writings, passed down from the Sopherim. Indeed, the MT is the direct descendent and consequently the most faithful exponent of the Hebrew Bible, but its redaction is not perfect. In the original Hebrew there were no punctuation marks and therefore the Masoretic scribal additions, which were incorporated into the text itself, although they represented only interpretative opinions, can be commented upon. The context must determine the punctuation ! Fortunately, the Hebrew manuscripts of the Canon were translated into a number of major languages of Antiquity even before the transformations made by the Masoretes, and these Versions – the Septuagint (known by the acronym LXX) and its variants (in Greek)/3rd century B.C. ÷ 2nd century A.D.; the Peshitta (in Syriac)/2nd century A.D. ÷ 5th century A.D.; and the Vulgate (in Latin)/4th century A.D. ÷ 5th century A.D. – can be used as authentic testimonies of the original Hebrew Scriptures in those situations where certain wordings are unclear or deficient in the MT. As far as the Septuagint is concerned, it is important to remember that the interpretations of the Church Fathers are based on the Greek rather than Hebrew text of the Old Testament because Jesus Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted from the LXX, and accorded it full authority as the inspired Word of God. In order to facilitate comprehension of the expository texts, each Hebrew word under discussion will be codified using the standard number from Strong’s Lexicon of Biblical Concordances.

3. Interpretation of the Oracle ( ´´Sixty-nine Weeks´´ )

3.1. Analysis of Daniel 9:25-26a (vocalic text)

< Grammatical – historical Exegesis >

The oracle is introduced via periphrasis Heb. < Weteda‘ (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the second person masculine singular Qal active imperfect form of the verb yâda‘ / yaw-dah´ # 3045: to know ) wetaskel (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the second person masculine singular Hiphil causative imperfect form of the verb sâkal / saw-kal´ # 7919: to understand / discern or to have insight) > = lit. < And you will know and you will make it be understood >, which is usually translated in the jussive: < Know therefore and understand > (pointing to Daniel’s obligation to perceive the Angel’s messages urgently). But the two verbs in the text are in effect synonyms and it is highly unlikely that Gabriel would have used them redundantly, even if such an attempt might denote insistence (as some analysts claim), because the order to discern the message had already been given in v.23: " (…). Therefore consider the word, and have understanding in the vision: ". Observation that the Qal of yâda‘ expresses a simple active action and the Hiphil of sâkal depicts a causative action (in the future tense) reveals, however, the true meaning of this phrase: Daniel was predestined to have understanding sufficient to be able to unravel, not only for himself but also for other men of the people of God ("Et scies, & perspicies, & intelliges" in Vetus Italica / Vul. - Versio Antiqua), the allusive and mysterious style of the prophetic utterance (the absence of proper names, the obscure numerology and an equivocal phenomenology). In fact it was also illogical to believe that the divine message had to be assimilated, understood and preserved by a single person. After these preliminaries, the limits of the predicted Messianic interval are revealed:

The starting point (terminus a quo): Heb. < min (the preposition min # 4480: from) – motsa’ (the masculine singular construct form of the noun môtsâ’ / mo-tsaw´ # 4161: the act of going forth or the issuing of ) dabar (the masculine singular form of the noun dâbâr / daw-baw´ # 1697: word ) lehashiyb (the prefix / preposition l = lamed : to / for) & the Hiphil causative infinitive construct form shub or shûwb / shoob # 7725: to restore / to return ) welibnoth (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the Qal active infinitive construct form of the verb bânâh / baw-naw´ # 1129: to (re)build ) Yerushalaim (the feminine singular form of the proper name Yerûwshâlayim / Yer-oo-shaw-lah´-yim # 3389 / Jerusalem) > = < from the going forth of the word to restore and to (re)build Jerusalem >.

The ending point (terminus ad quem): Heb.<‘ad (the preposition ‘ǎd / ad # 5704: until) Mashiyach (the masculine singular form of the noun Mâshîyach / Maw-shee´-akh # 4899: Messiah or an Anointed One / one Anointed ) nagiyd (the masculine singular form of the noun nâgîd / naw-gheed # 5057: a Prince or a Ruler / Chief leader) > = < unto Messiah, the Prince >.

Annotation.

‘The Messiah / the Anointed One, the Prince’ is a better translation than ‘an anointed one / one anointed, a prince’. Hebrew does not have a definite and an indefinite article; it simply has only the definite article ´´ha´´. Its absence in the rendering of the two titles gives the impression that they could be indefinite nouns. However, to equate the nonarticularity with the indefiniteness is to misunderstand Hebrew grammar. The lack of the ´´ha´´ does not necessarily mean that the words are indefinite; indeed, since a noun without an article is determined if it is definite in itself, like a title (e.g. ‘nagiyd ’) or a common noun that has acquired the value of a proper noun (e.g. ‘Mashiyach’), the requirements of grammar make the translation ‘The Messiah, the Prince’ to be the correct one here. In other words, the indefinite articles ´´a / an´´, which do not exist in Hebrew, cannot be used in this text. See also 1 Kg.16:16 or 1 Sm.2:8, which, despite the lack of a ´´ha´´, use the same system to define the words ‘captain’ → ‘the captain’ and ‘host’ → ‘the host’ or ‘world ’ → ‘the world ’. In any case, the Masoretic manner of rendering the titles ‘ mashiyach nagiyd ’( without definite articles ) is confusing and unsuited to the spirit of Daniel’s prophecy, since the two nouns are placed in apposition. The locution clearly refers to a single specific person with two titles: ‘ha mashiyach’ = ‘the Messiah’ / ‘the Anointed ’ of God, and ‘ha nagiyd ’ = ‘the Prince’ / ‘the King’ of God, i.e., the Redeemer who was prophesied in Ps.2:2,6 and Jr.23:5. Furthermore, the use of Messiah as a proper name is contextually legitimated by Zh.3:8, where the Hebrew descriptive term ‘tsemach ’ = ‘ branch / sprout ’ ( likewise without a definite article in original ) became an anthroponym in the language of God: " (…), I will bring forth my servant the Branch. ". Consequently, Christian theologians usually translate or read ‘unto the Anointed One, the Prince’, in accordance with older versions than the MT edition, which give the true sense of the passage: ‘until [the time] of Christ / of the Anointed One, of the Prince’ (LXX-Th.), ‘to the coming of the anointed king / Messiah the king’ (Pes. & TaR.PD/X, pp.242, 246, 248), ‘unto Christ, the Prince’ (Vul.) .

Exegetical Considerations.

It is obvious that any attempt to pinpoint the moment of the prophecy’s fulfilment depends chiefly upon solving the difficult matter of the terminus a quo. In their endeavours to determine the starting point of the sixty-nine weeks, all the experts are agreed that the expression ‘the going forth of the word ’ or ‘the going forth of the command(ment) ’ means ´the granting of an approval´ or ´the issuing of a decree*´ and that this commandment must be identified among the four acts (ordinances) of the Achaemenid kings, who, according to the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zechariah, had allowed gradual urban rebuildings in Jerusalem, after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar (see MaB.CTSWD/I: III, pp.115-126; BeA.SCDAC/VII: I.18-23, pp.712-713):

The Decree of Cyrus II, given to Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel (acc. to Ez.1:1-11; 2:1-2)

The Decree of Darius I, given to Tatnai (acc. to Ez.6:1-12)

The Decree of Artaxerxes I, given to Ezra ( acc. to Ez.7:11-26)

The Decree of Artaxerxes II, given to Nehemiah (acc. to Ne.2:1-8)

(* The exact expression in Dn.9:25 is ´spoken approval´, but traditionally the commentators have replaced this with ´decree´ because many Bible versions mention in Dn.9:24 that ‘Seventy weeks are decreed ’ for the messianic program of the redemption of Israel. Furthermore, because a ´word´ to restore and build Jerusalem would come from someone with the requisite authority to bring about such activity, most translators misuse the terms ´command(ment)´ / ´decree´ to convey the issuer’s competence, although the literal translation is simply ´word´).

Although all these edicts constituted a whole in the campaign to rebuild the city, it is, however, clear that the Angel Gabriel referred only to one of them and not to the batch of documents. The grammatical argument relies on the absence of the definite article accompanying the word ´decree´ in Dn.9:25: this means only ´a decree´, ´some decree´ (possibly out of several decrees of this kind). Moreover, beginning with the wording (in the singular form) ‘the going forth of the command(ment) (not command(ment)s)’ and ending with the couching of the oracle in a schema of calculation, the whole concept excludes the idea of global reference point = ´an entire epoch´ (from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I). Finally, the context of answering Daniel’s prayer indicates that one particular decree, not a whole series of possibilities, is envisaged. The selection of the document in question, of all the options available (Cyrus II/Zerubbabel; Darius I/Tatnai; Artaxerxes I/ Ezra or Nehemiah), presents a number of difficulties that should nonetheless be of no surprise to us given that they logically fall within the warning "(…): and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." (Dn.12:10). Over the years, some have opted for Cyrus II’s decree, believing that its content represents precisely the prediction from Is.44:28; 45:13, while others have preferred that of Darius I, on the ground that the new edict was in reality the act to carry out the stipulations of the original approval. But the majority has chosen the decrees of Artaxerxes I (see Annex I/1; 2.1: a ÷ e ), because this new pair of official rulings actually led to the fulfilment of the work of rebuilding. Consequently, a Jewish determination of the chronology of Artaxerxes I’s reign, is of great importance to the interpretation of Daniel’s Oracle (see Chap.I/3.2.3: A,B). Obviously the discovery of the correct solution needs to distinguish between the building of the city and the building of the temple, and to take into account the condition laid down by the syntagma ‘to restore and to build Jerusalem’ (" integrando & reaedificando Jerusalem" in Vetus Italica / Vul. – Versio Antiqua). The meaning of this phrase resides precisely in the delimitation of a highly precise blessing for (re)building, which aimed finally to restore (to return to) the former status of Jerusalem. The specific mentioning of the city’s name ‘Jerusalem’ helps to avoid confusion with the reconstruction of its Temple. None of the decrees of Cyrus II, Darius I or Artaxerxes I to Ezra for the staggered rebuilding of the Temple and of the dwelling places (see Chap.I/3.2: A,B,C), corresponded to the aforementioned desideratum; the best proof in this respect is the fact that despite all the post-Exile works to rebuild religious and lay structures, the fortifications of Jerusalem were in ruins by the mid-fifth century B.C.. Thus, the area of research had to be restricted to the order to rebuild the citadel (specifically including within its scope the building of fortifications = walls, bastions, ramparts and gates), the only measure capable of restoring the Holy City to the status of capital of Judaea and to safeguard the Jewish national identity in the face of the enemy (Artaxerxes I’s decree to Nehemiah, see Chap.I/3.2: D). Although the various biblical translations mention the Jerusalem of Daniel 9:18-19,24 as being a fortress or a city , neither of the two terms wrongly attributed, as at that time, any major settlement was de facto a fortified city. Consequently, the context ‘of the word / command(ment) ’ of v.25 points to the fact that despite the vague manner in which it was set down, it undoubtedly refers to the reinstatement of Jerusalem, after its complete reconstruction as a fortified city. On the other hand, the terminus ad quem investigations go beyond the strictly historical dimensions because the term envisages the coming of a ruler, who will be anointed by divine power. Along with the two termini, the oracle of the Angel Gabriel also relates the duration that separates them: Heb. < shabu‘iym (the masculine plural form of the noun shâbûa‘ / shaw-boo´-ah # 7620: week or a period of seven ) shib‘ah (the cardinal number shib‘âh / shib-aw´ # 7651: seven ) weshabu‘iym (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the masculine plural form of the noun shâbûa‘ / shaw-boo´-ah # 7620: week or a period of seven ) shishshiym (the masculine plural form of the cardinal number shishshâh / shish-shaw´ #8337: six ) → shishshîym / shish-sheem # 8346: sixty) ushenayim (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the masculine form of the dual number shenǎyim / shen-ah´-yim # 8147: two) > = < seven weeks and sixty-two weeks >.

Observation. MT, which reflects the Jewish rabbinical tradition, distorts the true syntax of the passage by inappropriate use of two disjunctive accents: ´Athnach´ ( the stronger accent, corresponding to the semicolon or two points) is placed below ‘shib‘ah’ = ‘seven’ and ´ Rebia ´ (the weaker accent, corresponding to the comma) is placed above ‘shenayim’ = ‘two’. The result is that the two numerals are included in different sentences and therefore, the Masoretic rendering of v.25 (also adopted by some modern biblical translators, under the pretext of rabbinic interpretative authority, although the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls ended the monopoly of transmission of the Masoretic Text) has the following structure: " Know therefore and understand: From the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven weeks; and sixty-two weeks, the street and the moat shall be built again, even in troublous times.". In other words, this kind of punctuation, which was not part of the original Hebrew text (having been added by the Massoretes, not earlier then the 5th Century A.D.) and therefore was not divinely inspired, separates the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks, even though they constitute a chronological entity. This means that the Messiah will come after seven weeks and the city will be rebuilt for 62 weeks ! So the Jewish scribes deliberately inserted the ´Athnach´ in verse 25 in order to change the true date of Messiah’s Coming. But the wording from the Vulgate (elaborated before MT) contradicts such a disjunction: ‘hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt’= ‘seven weeks and sixty-two weeks will be’ demands an interpretation of cumulative time periods. Similarly, the old Judaic reading from LXX-Th. ‘hebdomades hepta kai hebdomades hexēkonta duo; kai epistrepsei ’ = ‘seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and it / he ? shall return ’ shows, by the double use of the conjunction kai (and), that only after the syndetic period (‘sixty-two weeks’) must a new sentence begin. The Syriac Language of the Peshitta reiterates this truism: ‘seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. He will return’/‘seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; (and) he will restore’(BoP.RBDFCC / BrK.GDAJCI, p.115).

Moreover, the subterfuge employed by Masoretes, who had sought to isolate artificially a first Messianic period of ‘seven weeks’, is contradicted by the historical realities; regardless of whether the terminus a quo = 459 / 458, 457, 455, 454, 446, 445 or 444 B.C. ( see Chap.I /3.2: C,D; 3.2.3: B; Annex I/1 & 2.1: a÷e) nothing confirms the fact that only after 49 years = ‘7 weeks’ of years (the equivalence will be laid out below), i.e., in one of the years 410 / 409, 408, 406, 405, 397, 396 or 395 B.C., would a messianic figure have appeared among the Jews. The Masoretes’ stratagem probably aimed to replace an unsuccessful attempt to distort the terminus ad quem: the bizarre interpolation in LXX-A. (made a few centuries before MT) which, by adding the classic durations, established in v.26 a prophetic era of ‘(7 + 70 + 62) weeks’ = ‘ septem et septuaginta et sexaginta duas (hebdomadas) ’ ( Daniel, Caput IX / Codex Ambrosianus Ms.C.313 Inf. )! The reason why the scribes (soferim) of the 1st century A.D. changed Dn.9:26 from proto – LXX–A. is evident: a supplementation of ‘seventy weeks’ pushed the realisation of the objective of Dn.9:25 into the more distant future, thereby plunging readers into the dark night of uncertainty. It should be noted that such a trick is consistent with the assertions of Jus.Mar.D.Try.73[171]. In reply, the revisions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, which are considered to be uncorrupted texts (see Or.Com.Joan.VI/24[141], immediately reverted to the original interval of ´´(7+62) weeks´´.

Notes.

1) The Masoretes, who knew the implications of the 70 weeks and their messianic interpretation, had a motive to remove Messiah / Jesus from the prophecy (see BeR.DDMC/RQ, No.40, Tome 10, Fascicule 4, p.522): Rashi (rabbi, scholar and commentator on the Bible and the Talmud of the 11th - 12th century A.D.) says in rejecting literal expositions which favoured the Christians that "on account of the heretics (i.e., Christians)",the clause was divided by an athnach (see PuE.DP/IV, p.173, Note 4).

2) Despite all the evidence, the current proponents of Masoretic punctuation not only refuse to abandon their erroneous cause, but also manage to gain followers among the experts: a) The translators of ´´The Syriac Peshitta Bible´´ (´´The Antioch Bible´´) – ‘from speaking the word to returning, to rebuilding Jerusalem and to the coming of the anointed king, seven weeks; and (after) sixty-two weeks he will return’ ; b) The editors of the ´´Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio´´ – ‘ab exitu sermonis ut iterum aedificetur Ierusalem usque ad Christum ducem, hebdomades septem. Et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt’!? Both texts reveal deficient grammatical structures, which indicates that these are merely artificial adaptations to MT.

Finally, the Masoretic viewpoint is at odds not only with the patristic concept, that treated the ´´69 weeks´´ as a single piece of time (see Cl.Al.Str.I/XXI[142]; J.Afr.Chrg.XVI/I-III &XVIII/II-III; Hip.Com.Dan.IV/XXX[213]; Or.Hex.Dan.IX/26: LXX-Aq./LXX-Sy.;Cyp. Car.Pas.Com.App.II[958-959]; Eus.Dem.Ev.VIII/2[381-382;397]; Aph.Sap.Per.Dem.XIX /9-11; Cyr.Hier.Cat.XII/XIX[172]; In.Chr.Ad.Jud.Or.V/10[644]; Hie.Com.Dan.IX/24 [681]; The.Cyr.Ex.Dan.IX/25[1242,1244]; Bas.Sel.Or.XXXVIII[195; 198, 203]; etc.), but also with the chronological opinions held by the classical Hebrew scholars (the Essenian priests of Qumran and the Rabbis Yochanan ben Zakkai, Akiva ben Yoseph, Eleazar ben Azariah, Yose ben Halafta, Yehudah ha-Nasi, the redactor of the Mishnah / 2nd century B.C. – 2nd century A.D), who predicted that the date of Messiah’s Arrival would be in the interval between the 1st century A.D. and 3rd century A.D.. In any event, the rabbis’ subsequent decision to ban any calculation of the Messiah’s time speaks for itself (see Tal.Bav.Sanhedrin 11:1/ I.93, B.[Fol.97B]). In this respect, it should be mentioned Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon / Rambam = Moses Maimonides (Sephardic Jewish philosopher, jurist, religious thinker, and physician of 12th -13th century A.D.), who wrote in ´´Iggeret Teman ´´( ´´The epistle of Yemen´´): " (…). Inasmuch as Daniel has proclaimed the matter a deep secret, our sages have interdicted the calculation of the time of the future redemption, or the reckoning of the period of the advent of the Messiah, because the masses might be mystified and bewildered should the Messiah fail to appear as forecast. The rabbis invoked God to frustrate and destroy those who seek to determine precisely the advent of the messianic era, (…)." (Mai.Igg.Tem.[12]). In conclusion, any valid interpretation must fundamentally regard the ´´69 weeks´´ as a duration with a binomial structure.

To come back to the initial commentary, the calculation of the prophesied periods demands first of all the decipherment of the metrological vocabulary, which reveals the nature of the ‘weeks’. Inasmuch as the term ‘shabu‘iym’ is usually translated ´in extenso´ (an artifice allowed by Hebrew) as ‘weeks’ ( the weekly cycle is a template that can be used to represent different periods of time by changing the scale of the time: see Chap.II /1,B) it means that the temporal units = the ´´sevens´´ of Dn.9:24-27 refer to seven-year units of time and, therefore they represent ´´prophetic weeks´´, the so-called ´´weeks of years´´ = Lat. ‘hebdomadas annorum’ (see Lv.25:8 / Vul.), and not the usual weeks of days: " (…). Nec enim hic dicit hebdomadas dierum aut mensium, sed annorum. (…)." (In.Chr.Ad.Jud.Or.V/10[644]), i.e., " (…) septimanae annorum impletae sunt usque ad ducem Christum quas praedixerat Daniel propheta."(Or.De Pr.IV/5[160]) and therefore " (…). Sexaginta et novem annorum hebdomadae annos constituunt quadragintos octoginta tres.(…)." (Cyr.Hier.Cat.XII/XIX[172]; "(…). Septuaginta enim hebdomades quadringentos nonaginta annos significant.(…)." (Ath.Al.Q.Ant. CXXXVII/2[248]) = " (…). Annorum supputationem, LXX scilicet hebdomades, seu CDXC annos,(…)." (Eus.Ecl.Pr.III/XLVI).

A variety of factors furnish evidence that the ‘weeks’ of this text are prophetic weeks rather than literal weeks, but the most important of these is the reference to the duration of the 70th week. Namely, since the last ‘week’ of the prophecy is a period of seven years (because half thereof is three and half years long = 42 months = 1260 days, see Dn.7:25; 9:27; Rv.11:2, 3; 12:6; 14; 13:5), it is reasonable to conclude that the other sixty-nine ‘weeks’ also represent periods of seven years.

These exegeses are based on the ´´Year - Day Principle´´ or ´´a day for a year´´, which is the ´´Divine Scale´´ of the prophetic chronology (see Chap.II/1: A;B). According to this principle, each day in the prediction corresponds to a year of actual fulfilment. In other words, the ´´Year Day Scale´´ is a method of decrypting the prophetic times (see Chr.Heb.Mai./Sed.Ol.Rab.28; Ir.Lug.Con.Haer.V/XXV.4[323]; Ter.Adv.Jud.VIII; J.Afr. Chrg.XVI/I & XVIII/IV; Hip.Com.Dan.IV/XXX-XXXI[213-214v]; Cyp.Car.Pas.Com. App.II[959]; Eus.Dem.Ev.VIII/2[383,389]; Aph.Sap.Per.Dem.XIX/11; Hie.Com.Dan.IX/ 24[682]; Tic/Aug.Hip.Ex.Ap.Jon.Hom.VIII[APOC.X et XI]:App.; Pol.Com.Dan.IX/25; The.Cyr.Ex.Dan.IX/24[1239]; Bas.Sel.Or.XXXVIII[203]; Leo.Byz.Sec.Actio II/V; etc.); indeed, regardless of the historical context in which they might have been framed, the ‘70 weeks’ = 70 ‘weeks’ x 7 days per ‘week’ = 490 days were not sufficient to fulfil all the objectives announced through the divine messenger (v.24). It therefore remains for us to examine the variant of the interval of ‘70 weeks’ =70 ‘weeks’ x 7 years per ‘week’ = 490 calendar years. It sould be noted that all commentators of the past, especially Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (11th – 12th century A.D.), interpreted these ‘70 weeks’ to mean 490 years (see GoH.DNT, p.259). Anticipatory observation: these years have, however, a specific feature, see Chap.II/1. Such an interpretation of Daniel’s ‘weeks’ is also justified by the symbolism of some chronologies (expressed in ‘weeks of years’ or ‘periods of weeks of years’, but in any case longer than the seven days sequences), to which a few significant works of intertestamental literature refer: ´´The Book of Jubilees´´ (see Lib.Jub.L.2-4 = APOT-II, p.81), ´´The Apocalypse of Ezra / 4 Ezra´´ (see 4Ez.VII.[43] = APOT-II, p.584), ´´The Damascus Document´´(see CD-A, Col.XVI.3-4/ DSS, pp.564-565; FZW, Text A, XX.3-4/DJS, pp.LV-LVI or APOT-II, pp.833-834 & footnote XX.1), ´´The Testament of Levi´´ (see Tes.Lev. XVI.1, XVII.1-11 = APOT-II, pp.313-314), from ´´The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs´´, ´´The Book of Enoch / 1 Enoch´´ (see Lib.En.XCIII.1-10; XCI.12-17 = APOT-II, pp.262-265; see also 4Q212, Col.III, Lines 18-25, Col.IV, Lines 11-26/DSS, pp.442-445),´´The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch / 2 Baruch´´(see Ap.Syr. Bar.XXVIII.2 = APOT-II, p.497), ´´The Assumption / Testament of Moses´´(see Ass.Mos. X.12 = APOT-II, pp.422-423), ´´The Ages of Creation´´ (see 4Q180, Frag.1, Lines 1-5, 9/DSS, pp.370-373 & 4Q181, Frag.2, Lines 1, 3, 9/DSS, pp.374-375), ´´The Pseudo-Moses Apocalypse ´´ (see 4Q390, Frag.1, Lines 2, 7 & Frag.2, Col.I, Lines 4, 6/DSS, pp.782-785) and ´´The Coming of Melchizedek´´ (see 11Q13, Col.II, Lines 2, 7, 18 & Col.III, Lines 13, 17-18/DSS, pp.1206-1209). Some of these legitimise not only the criterion of the equivalence between a day and a year, but also the numerological concept of prophecy (the use of 70 or 490 in the structure of the story): ‘seventy weeks (of years)’ (Tes.Lev.XVI.1, XVII.1; 4Q181, Frag.2, Line 3/DSS, pp.374-375), ‘seventy generations’ (Lib.En.X.12), ‘seventy books’ (4 Ez.XIV.46), or a period of ‘ten jubilees’ i.e., 10 x 49 years = 490 years (11Q13, Col.II, Line 7/DSS, pp.1206-1207). Significantly, the Book of Daniel associates the symbolic period of the ´´70 weeks´´ with the literal period of another temporal prophecy, concerning the fate of the Jewish people (the ´´Prophecy of the 70 years´´ given to Jeremiah), which in turn is based on the number 70 (see Dn.9:2, 24). But the subtlest correspondence is revealed by the parallel between Daniel’s prophecy of the ‘70 weeks’ and Enoch’s vision of the ‘seventy ( prevaricating ) shepherds’, from ´´The Apocalypse of the Animals´´ ( see Lib.En.LXXXIX.59; XC.1-25 = APOT-II, p.255; pp.256-259 ). To be more precise, the duration of ‘70 (= 7 + 62 + 1) weeks (of years)’ = 490 calendar years is equivalent to the sum of the regnal periods, calculated in ‘weeks ( of years )’, of the ‘70 (= {12 + 23} + 23 + 12) shepherds’, who ruled Israel during an interval subdivided into four segments: 12 periods (12 x 7 years = 84 years) + 23 periods (23 x 7 years = 161 years) + 23 periods (23 x 7 years = 161 years) + 12 periods (12 x 7 years = 84 years), i.e., 490 (=84 years + 161 years + 161 years + 84 years) years in total. Leaving aside the contradictory theological interpretations regarding the identity of the ‘shepherds’ , which merely diminish the meaning of the prophetic message, we may say that it is certain that (Pseudo-) Enoch recognised Daniel’s ‘weeks’ as foretelling the coming of the Messiah. The entire duration of the prophecy (v.24) is therefore cryptically set at ‘Seventy (prophetic) Weeks’ through an obvious similitude with the ‘Seventy (calendar) years’ of the length of the Babylonian exile. Whereas Daniel had already understood from the prophecy of Jeremiah that the repatriation of the Jews could only take place after 70 years (=10 x 7 years, i.e., after 10 sabbatical cycles), he now learned from the Angel Gabriel that their reconciliation with God would require a period of time seven times longer: 7 x 70 years = 7 x (7 years x 10) = (7 x 7 years) x 10=10 x 49 years , i.e., 10 jubilee cycles (one jubilee cycle = 49 years). In this way, the prophet must have understood once and for all that the prophetic number 70, – i.e., the product of the holy number seven (connected to the Sabbath) and the perfect number ten (connected to the Decalogue) – signifies, in biblical terms, the perfection of the divine order. Obs. These numerological disclosures are only holistic approaches of the periods of Daniel, and not paradigms for the concrete reckoning of his prophetic weeks: a week (‘hebdomad’) in Dn.9:24-27 means " (…) septem annorum, non septem Jubilaeorum, vel Centenariorum, (…). " (MaR.PF/II: III.IV, p.217). Therefore the new oracle represented an esoteric amplification of the old. Besides, the reading of verses 25 and 27 reveals an extensive numerological symbolism. The duration of ‘seventy weeks’ was divided, for didactic purposes, into three unequal parts (7 + 62 + 1), which were, however, to unfold in two distinct stages: an initial phase of ´´69 weeks´´, comprising two consecutive symbolic parts (‘7 weeks’ & ‘62 weeks’), and a separate final phase, made up of a single ‘week’ (the 70th week of Daniel), which is separated from the others by a long time gap, a historical hiatus (see Bar.Ap.Ep.XVI/6; Ir.Lug.Con.Haer.V/XXV.4[323]; Cl.Al.Str.I/XXI[143]; Cyp.Car.Pas. Com.App.II[959]; etc.). Inasmuch as it is a time postponed, as a respite of grace for God’s People, after the passing of the Messiah (v.26a), this last week (v.27) is consequently situated outside the Oracle (v.25-26a) and its exegeses, as has already been stated in Chapter I/2. The establishment of a dual sequence (‘7 weeks’+‘62 weeks’) instead of a single period (´´69 weeks´´) has as its substratum the intention to underline the significance of the Sabbatical cycle and Jubilee year for this period (at the heart of the temporal language in Dn.9:24-27 is a sabbatical and jubilee pattern - see Chap.II/2.3 & Annex II/3.7 and the Arabic Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Jephet ibn Ali, a Karaite Jew of the 10th century A.D., which says: ‘These seventy weeks are weeks of sabbatical years, making 490 years; below they divided into periods.’ – JA.CD/IX.24, p.49) and to highlight a separation (through a terminus intermedius, see Chap.II/2.2-Appendix) between the two kinds of events leading up to the coming of the Anointed One . This delimitation is revealed by the traditional translations of verse 25, through the use of the conjunction ´and´ (or a comma) after ‘seven weeks’ and a full stop/colon/semi-colon after ‘sixty-two weeks’, which suggests that the subintervals are directly connected to the preparations listed in the additional sentence: Heb. < tashub (the third person feminine singular Qal active imperfect form of the verb shub or shûwb / shoob # 7725: to return ) wenibnetah (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the third person feminine singular Niphal passive perfect form of the verb bânâh / baw-naw´ # 1129: to (re)build ) rechob (the masculine singular noun rechôb / rekh-obe´ # 7339: street or (public) square) wecharuts (the prefix / conjunction w = vâv: and & the masculine singular noun chârûts / khaw-roots´ # 2742: moat or trench ) ubetsoq (the prefix 7 conjunction w = vâv: and & the masculine singular construct form of the noun tsôwq / tsoke # 6695: strait , distress or constraint ) ha‘ittiym (the definite article ha: the & the masculine plural form of the noun ‘êth / ayth # 6256: time ) > = lit.< she shall return and she is rebuilt >, which is usually translated < the street and the moat shall be built again, even in troublous times > = < it will be built again, with square (= plaza) and moat, but (even) in times of distress (= constraint) > (or other variants). Characteristics of the redaction: correct basis, deficient form (which makes it difficult to detect the terminus a quo). To be more exact, they use the auxiliary verb to build again – made up of the adverbial conjunction of shub with banah – which is not found in the Hebrew text. But the verbs shub and banah are made intransitive and consequently the construction ‘tashub wenibnetah’ should not be interpreted adverbially. The reason for this morphological distortion may nevertheless be found in the wording of the MT, which employs the feminine in a confused manner, allowing it to be believed that ‘she’ uniformly refers to Jerusalem. In reality, this connection is valid only for the second part ‘she (=the city of Jerusalem) is rebuilt ’, but not for the first ‘she (=?) shall return’. Many theologians have fallen into the trap of generalisation, going by the fact that the repeated inclusion of the pair of verbs shub and banah in the two apparently identical expressions ( ‘lehashiyb welibnoth’ and ‘tashub wenibnetah’ ) would point to their interconnectedness: the second confirms the fulfilment of the command mentioned in the first one?!. The situations are debatable. Whereas banah refers to ´the (re)building´ of Jerusalem ( both by ‘welibnoth’ and by ‘wenibnetah’ ), shub conveys on the one hand ´the return / restoration´ of the state of Jerusalem ( by ‘lehashiyb’ ) but on the other hand ´the return´ of the rebuilder of Jerusalem ( by ‘tashub’ ). The Angel Gabriel had neither the time nor the intention to make redundant arguments, as has sometimes been argued, and consequently the text of v.25 must be understood as being made up of predictions about the unfolding of various events (the issue of the decree, the repatriation of the beneficiary, and the rebuilding of the city). The fact that Daniel was informed via the word ‘tashub’ of the return of a person and not the return of a city (Jerusalem), or its time is demonstrated by the clear wording in the Pes. ‘ He (= a person) will return and rebuild Jerusalem)’ and the more evasive statements in the LXX-Th. ‘And then it (or he) shall return,…’ or in the Vetus Italica / Vul. – Versio Antiqua ‘et convertet’. And even if some believe that the Peshitta refers to a collective person (the Jewish people) and not to an individual – a hypothesis contrary to the mathematical spirit of the prophecy – the verb ‘tashub’ must be amended correspondingly, both in the wording of MT ( ‘she’ → ‘he’ ) and in the translations that ignore its meaning. Taking into account these rectifications, the meaning of the sentence as a whole would be that of the total of ´´69 weeks´´(from the command to restore and (re)build Jerusalem to the Anointed One / the Messiah ), the first ‘7 weeks’ were apportioned to the (re)building of the ‘street / square’ ( = the interior of