SOURCE: Redditt, Paul L. “Daniel 9: Its Structure and Meaning.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62, no. 2 (April 2000): 236-49.

[In the following essay, Redditt offers a close reading of the ninth chapter of The Book of Daniel, arguing that the early verses of the chapter reflect the historical situation of the writers; that the middle portion of the chapter explains why Israel had not yet turned to God, as had been prophesied in the Book of Jeremiah; and that the latter part of the chapter offers a timetable for the deliverance of Jerusalem.]

The eponymous hero in Daniel 9 ponders the devastation of Jerusalem, consults certain “books” to determine how long that devastation will last, and learns that its duration will be seventy years (vv. 1-2). Immediately, Daniel turns to God in a prayer of confession (vv. 3-20), whereupon the Archangel Gabriel arrives to tell Daniel the seventy years will actually last seventy weeks of years, marked by the appearance of two “anointed ones.” Then a “prince” will destroy the city (already desolated!) only to meet his own end shortly thereafter.

Scholars have debated many of the details mentioned in this summary, particularly the time frame covered by the seventy weeks of years, the identity of the two “anointed ones” and the “prince,” and the unity of the chapter. A review of those debates will reveal that critical scholars by and large identify Joshua and Onias III as the anointed ones and Antiochus IV as the prince. In addition, a consensus is emerging that the prayer uttered in vv. 4b-19 was not written by the author of Daniel 9 but is integral to the chapter nevertheless.

This study will build on these insights. It will show that Daniel 9 was an expression of the self-understanding of the group standing behind the Book of Daniel. In doing so the study will make the following argument. Verses 1-2 blend the historical situation of Daniel with that of the second-century community under Antiochus IV. Next, vv. 3-20 explain why the full restitution promised in Jeremiah 25 and 29 had not yet materialized, namely, that Israel had not turned to God fervently. Then vv. 21-27 offer a timetable for that restitution. In this study a new understanding of that timetable will be offered, namely, that it does not offer specific dates but employs a periodization of history based on sabbaths and jubilees. This periodization allowed the author to make predictions about the end of oppression which Israel suffered from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the time of Antiochus IV without forcing him to risk giving a specific date that could prove wrong.

I. A REVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP ON DANIEL 9

A. SEVENTY WEEKS OF YEARS

According to Dan [Book of Daniel] 9:2, Daniel was pondering the seventy years of the devastation of Jerusalem proclaimed by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10). The setting of the narrative was the first year of “Darius the Mede,” the putative ruler of the Median Empire that followed the Babylonian Empire in the chronology of the Book of Daniel. According to Jer 25:11-12 and 29:10, seventy years of Babylonian hegemony would be followed by the fall of Babylon, when God would take the exiles home. With Nebuchadnezzar dead and his empire gone, but with Israel still in exile, the exilic figure “Daniel” raised the question on the minds of all exiles from the year 539 on: When would the restoration occur? Was it time?

The arithmetic might suggest that the time had indeed come. If one subtracts seventy years from 605 (the year when Babylon overthrew Assyria), the result is 535. It is possible that originally the numbers were calculated for just that year, but that possibility requires (1) that the exiles knew the year when the Babylonians conquered the Assyrians and (2) that they took the number seventy literally. Whatever the intention behind the original calculation may have been, the author of Daniel 9 certainly repudiated the second requirement at least. Whatever others may have thought of the restoration described in Ezra-Nehemiah, the author of Daniel was not prepared to accept the conditions of 165 b.c. (or 539 b.c. either) as a fulfillment of God's promise through Jeremiah.¹ Consequently, Gabriel came to inform “Daniel” that the “devastation of Jerusalem” (not the same thing as the hegemony of Babylon) would last seventy weeks of years (Dan 9:24).

When did those seventy weeks of years begin? Various answers have been offered, including ca. 605 (because of Jer 25:1, 11-12),² 594 (because of Jer 29:10),³ 586 (because of Dan 9:2),⁴ 458 (the date of Artaxerxes' decree to Ezra),⁵ and 445 (taken as the year of the return of Nehemiah; see Neh 2:8).⁶ Since Daniel 9 deals explicitly with the devastation of Jerusalem, the year 586 would seem best.

According to Dan 9:25, seven weeks of years would elapse between the time the word went forth to restore the city until the time of an “anointed one.” The identity of that “anointed one” is also debated. Nominees include Cyrus (on the basis of Isa 45:1),⁷ Zerubbabel (on the basis of passages like Ezra 5:2; Hag 1:1; Zech 4:6-10),⁸ and Joshua the high priest (on the basis of passages like Zech 6:11-12).⁹ While Cyrus is certainly called God's “anointed one” in Isa 45:1, the more natural reading of Dan 9:25 is that the “anointed one” would flourish in Jerusalem. Scholars who understand the high priest Onias III as the second “anointed one” mentioned in Dan 9:26 often choose Joshua over Zerubbabel because similar statements are made about the two.¹⁰ Scholars who see the time frame beginning in 458 or 445 interpret the forty-nine years as the time that generation took to rebuild Jerusalem and get its affairs in order again after the exile.¹¹ In that case, of course, the identity of the first “anointed one” remains unknown.

According to 9:26, after another period of sixty-two weeks of years a second “anointed one” would be cut off and a prince would destroy the city of Jerusalem. There are basically two nominees for this person: Onias III, whose death was followed by the persecutions of the Seleucids,¹² and Jesus, whose death was followed, decades later, by the destruction wrought by the Romans.¹³ Since 9:27 alludes to the same actions of Antiochus IV denounced elsewhere in the Book of Daniel, it seems best to take Onias III as that second “anointed one,” as virtually all critical scholars do, thus eliminating the traditional view that v. 26 predicts the death of Jesus.¹⁴ Even so, the problem remains that no really satisfactory solution has yet been offered that makes the sixty-ninth week of years end in 171, the year of Onias' death (or that makes it end with the death of Jesus either, for that matter).

To summarize the debate over the seventy weeks of years, one may point to disagreement about when they began, the identity of the two “anointed ones,” and when they end. Those issues seem best solved by understanding 586 as the year when the seventy years begin, Joshua as the first “anointed one,” Onias III as the second “anointed one,” and a time shortly after Onias' death as the time when they end.

B. THE UNITY OF DANIEL 9

Among traditional scholars, there is no argument over the authorship of Daniel 9: the exilic hero Daniel wrote the chapter, as he did the rest of the book.¹⁵ On the other hand, critical scholars point to several features that they think indicate a different hand at work in the prayer of penitence in vv. 4b-19. (1) The transitions between the narrative and the prayer (in vv. 4a and 20) are rough, while the connection between vv. 3 and 21 is much smoother. (2) The inquiry in v. 2 about the duration of the “devastation of Jerusalem” is not answered in the prayer. (3) In the prayer the divine name Yahweh is used six times between vv. 4 and 14 and once in each of the transitional verses 4a and 20 and in v. 2, whereas the name does not appear elsewhere in the rest of the Book of Daniel.¹⁶ (4) The Hebrew of vv. 4b-19 is better than that of the rest of the chapter, and it is free of Aramaisms. (5) Stylistically vv. 4b-19 resemble prayers in Ezra 9:6-15, 1 Kgs 8:23-53, and Bar 1:15-3:8 more than they do the rest of Daniel 9.¹⁷ Consequently, many scholars have considered the prayer an addition.¹⁸

That solution, however, does not account for the function of the prayer within chap. 9, which G. H. Wilson argues is to have Daniel do what Jer 29:12-14 says must be done before the end of Jerusalem's punishment can come: the exiles must turn fervently to God.¹⁹ Balentine thinks that the prayer adds a crucial element to the chapter: it grounds the hope for restoration and the concomitant hope for divine forgiveness in the nature of God as a keeper of covenant.²⁰ Nor does totally separating the prayer from the narrative account for verbal connections between the prayer and the end of the chapter adduced by other scholars. These connections include similar, though very general, vocabulary (e.g., nātak, “poured out,” in vv. 11 and 27, and haṭṭā’t, “sin,” which appears throughout the prayer and in vv. 20, 24 as well) and the specific mention of Jerusalem which occurs only here (in vv. 2, 7, 12, 16, 25) in the entire Book of Daniel.²¹ So a consensus has begun to emerge that the author of Daniel 9 incorporated a previously existing prayer (vv. 4-19) into the narrative (vv. 1-3, 21-27).²² That consensus will be accepted in the remainder of this article.

C. THE SOCIOHISTORICAL SETTING OF DANIEL 9

In an earlier study, I showed that the Book of Daniel took shape in a community of scribes at one time employed by the Seleucids.²³ The community originally resided in Seleucid territory, most likely in Babylon, but moved to Palestine after the Seleucid takeover in 198 b.c.e. Their hopes for a new day were then dashed by the actions of Antiochus IV in the years between 171 (the death of Onias III) and 165 (the Abomination of Desolation).

They thought of themselves as “the wise” (11:33, 35), and one aspect of their self-understanding surfaces in Daniel 9.²⁴ The group portrays its hero Daniel in a unique way within the book, namely, as a scribe poring over “books” (v. 2) or “Scripture,” and Daniel 9 stands as the centerpiece of a mantological anthology (i.e., a collection of passages designed to resolve cognitive problems).²⁵Daniel 7 and 8 offer symbolic visions interpreting the past, present, and immediate future of second-century Israel, while Daniel 10-12 speaks allegorically about the history of Israel's experience in the Greek Empire.²⁶ In Daniel 9, however, the author or editor turns to the prophet Jeremiah to find the answer to the problem facing the community, namely, why the predicted restoration of Judah and Jerusalem had not yet come about and when it would. In doing so Daniel was the embodiment of the group and the spokesman to and for it.

II. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED READING OF DANIEL 9

The differences in style between the narrative and the prayer in Daniel 9, noted above, need further discussion. The original narrative probably included only vv. 1-3 and 21-27. The Hebrew of that framework is poor enough to draw comment from many exegetes. Indeed, it is quite possible that the framework represents a translation from or a summary of an Aramaic original. Given its brevity, it is more likely a summary of a longer narrative.

If so, the same thing can be said of the introduction to the book (Dan 1:1-2:4a), which is also in Hebrew. Dan 1:1-2 is derived from 2 Chr 36:6-7, with details from the fall of Jerusalem included. The narrative concerning the special diet of the four Hebrew youths (1:8-16) is an addition to the original story, which dealt with a competition over knowledge at Nebuchadnezzar's court. The point of the addition is that the four excelled because of their allegiance to the Law of Moses. Dan 1:21 is a redactional ending, tying Daniel 1 with the latest dated monarch in the book, Cyrus the Great (10:1); 2:1-4a introduces the next narrative. This means, then, that the original narrative in Daniel 1 comprised a mere nine verses (1:3-8, 18-20). The narrative was probably in Aramaic, but it was taken over, reduced to bare bones, and then newly expanded by an author writing in Hebrew.²⁷

If Dan 9:1-3, 21-27 is a narrative drafted in poor Hebrew, the prayer in 9:4b-19, by contrast, features good Hebrew style and alludes to earlier biblical texts. Its focus on transgression and repentance suggests that it was a previously existing liturgical document in Hebrew. The absence of Aramaisms in the prayer may be due in part to its reuse of older scriptural verses, but it also reflects an author more at home in Hebrew than the author of vv. 1-3, 21-27. André Lacocque dates the prayer to 600 b.c.e.,²⁸ but that is a bit too early, since vv. 8, 12, and 16 presuppose extreme calamity in Jerusalem, from which it had not recovered, and v. 17 speaks of the “desolated sanctuary,” v. 18 of the “desolate city.” Unless those terms are simply interpolated by the second-century writer, they would best fit Jerusalem between 586 and 516. Even after Zerubbabel's temple was built, both it and the city perhaps might still be referred to as desolate, but the later one dates the prayer, the more problematic those descriptions are. Also, the reference in v. 6 to God's “servants the prophets” reminds one of Zech 1:6. Hence, it seems best to assume that a writer from the dark days of the second century used a prayer from the dark days of the sixth.

A. DANIEL 9:1-2

The setting for Daniel 9 is “the first year of Darius the Mede.”²⁹ The information about “Darius” contained here quite possibly came from traditions in Judah, or even Jerusalem, in the second century. Tob 14:15 reads, “Before [Tobit] died he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus captured” (RSV). The NRSV, JB, NAB, and REB emend the text to read “Cyaxares of Media” instead of “Ahasuerus.” That emendation is more correct historically, of course, but Greek mss read “Ahasuerus” (or “Ahikar”). Actually Nabopolassar of Babylon and Cyaxares of Media conquered Nineveh, so the following suggestion is in order: the tradition simply substituted persons better known to Judaeans, Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus. The editor of Daniel 7-12 probably also wrote 5:30, where he states that “Darius the Mede” succeeded Belshazzar. Since Belshazzar in Daniel 5 is the son of Nebuchadnezzar, the editor very likely concluded that “Darius,” a contemporary of Belshazzar, was the son of Ahasuerus (9:1).

According to 9:2, the hero Daniel reads “in the books” that the devastation of Jerusalem was to last seventy years. Gerald H. Wilson plausibly identifies those “books” as Jeremiah 25 and 29.³⁰ Further, the number “seventy” would have raised a question that was pressing for exiled Judaeans in 538: “when will this exile end?” The question was even more pressing for repatriated Judaeans in 165, whose standing under Antiochus would be uppermost in their minds as they contemplated their situation under him.

A modern reader might argue that the exile had ended with the decree of Cyrus and the return of some of the exiles to Judah, but that answer failed to satisfy the author of Daniel 9.³¹ Whatever limited fulfillment he might have seen in those events, the conditions of his own day precluded his understanding them as the ultimate restoration articulated in such passages as Isa 57:4-13; Hag 1:2-10; Zech 13:1-9; Mal 1:6-2:17. Hence, in v. 24 he recast Jeremiah's words into a prediction that the devastation of Jerusalem would not be finished until seventy weeks of years had passed, and in v. 3 he had Daniel pray fervently, thus fulfilling the requirement in Jer 29:12-14. Also, the mention of Daniel's prayer provided a built-in opportunity to insert the liturgical confession which follows.

B. DANIEL 9:3-4A, 20

What would have precluded God's word from being kept sooner? The author sought the answer within Israel itself, not in some failure on God's part, and answered his question through the prayer. The framework of the prayer is vv. 3-4a and 20. In v. 4a, Daniel confesses his own sin, and in v. 20 he prays as well for the transgression of the people and for Zion. The prayer itself (vv. 4b-19) is a communal confession. Nowhere else in the book outside of 9:4-20 does Daniel confess his sinfulness; rather, he has been a paragon of virtue. Not even the older narrative of Dan 9:1-3, 21-27 mentions Daniel's transgressing or confessing. Nor did Jer 29:12-14 direct the exiles to repent, though it might be said to have implied such. Thus, it was the second-century author of Daniel 9 who reshaped an older narrative by inserting the confessional prayer to give the narrative a new emphasis on his community's sinfulness. He did not even blush at having his hero and spokesperson Daniel confess his own sinfulness.

C. DANIEL 9:4B-19

The elements of 9:4b-19 are typical of prayers of confession. Examples of such prayers appear in Ezra 9:6-7, 1 Kgs 8:47, and Bar 2:12. They open with an admission of guilt (Dan 9:5a, 9), of having turned from the commandments and ordinances of God (9:5b, 10), and of having refused to listen to God's servants the prophets (9:6, 10). They include a confession of collective guilt (9:7a, 11) and of God's punishing them by sending them into exile according to a previous warning (9:7b).

These confessions defend God's justice in punishing the people, allude to Moses (9:13), and request deliverance beginning with the phrase “and now” (9:15). They request that God remember delivering them from Egypt (9:15), turn aside his righteous anger (9:16), and preserve Jerusalem and the temple or the holy mountain (9:16). They complain to God that the people of Israel are a disgrace among their neighbors (Dan 9:16), and they implore God to listen to them for his own sake (Dan 9:17, 19), to look on their situation, (Dan 9:18), to forgive them (Dan 9:19), and to act, again for his own sake (9:19). These concerns are the stock-in-trade of postexilic prayers of confession,³² and the confession serves as the necessary precondition for the salvation of Jerusalem.

Even so, it is possible to examine the prayer for insights into the concerns of the author of Daniel 9. Verses 11-13 contain language largely without parallel in the other three prayers cited above. For one thing, in v. 11 the author speaks of the curse and the oath “written in the Law of Moses,” making an allusion to Deut 29:20, 27. For another, in Dan 9:13 he says that the “calamity threatened by Moses” had come upon them and uses the same word for “calamity” (rā‘â) as does Deut 29:20-21. Lev 26:27-45 and Deut 28:15-53 were almost surely in view as well. Lev 26:34-35 applies the idea of Sabbath rest to the exile (see below on vv. 24-27), and Deut 28:15-53 pronounces curses for disobeying God's Law. These passages would have seemed frighteningly prophetic of the misfortune brought on Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes. The similarities between them and Daniel 9 suggest that in vv. 12-13 the second-century author blended the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar into the calamity under Antiochus Epiphanes and applied to his own generation the punishment for apostatizing to the gods of Canaan “foreseen” by Moses.

One may assume that the sin which the second-century author had in mind included the overt adoption of Hellenistic customs, which he considered immoral, by persons highly placed within the Judaean community. Dan 7:25 complains that Antiochus attempted “to change the sacred seasons and the law” (NRSV), and 9:11 confesses that Israel had transgressed the Law (cf. 1 Macc 1:43).

Elements in the book indicate some of the changes which the second-century author of Daniel opposed. As has been mentioned above, Dan 1:8-16 constitutes a second-century addition to the original story of Daniel's apprenticeship. The point of 1:8-16 is not simply that Israel should keep the dietary regulations (the diet of the four youths goes far beyond those rules) but that Israel avoid the food of the king. Thus, the martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother reported in 2 Macc 7:1-42 and in 4 Maccabees probably provides the real background for Dan 1:8-16.

Other narratives in Daniel 2-6 have been left unchanged, but they would have taken on new meaning in the second century. The narratives about statues in Daniel 2 and 3 probably would have been reinterpreted if Antiochus' defamation of the temple (Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) had included the erection of an image of Jupiter Olympius in the temple at Jerusalem described by Jerome.³³ Likewise, the impious use of the temple vessels by Belshazzar in Daniel 5 probably would have been understood in light of the pillaging of the vessels by Antiochus (cf. 1 Macc 1:22-23).³⁴

D. DANIEL 9:21-27

The visions in Daniel 8 and 9 have to do with the desecration of the temple. Dan 8:13 raises the question how long the sanctuary will remain under the control of Antiochus, and 8:14 offers one answer: 2,300 evenings and mornings. Dan 9:24-27 offers another: until Jeremiah's seventy weeks of years are completed. Dan 9:21 introduces the one who will give the answer, namely, the “man” Gabriel, and identifies him as the “man” who interpreted Daniel's vision in Daniel 8, thus tying Daniel 8 and 9 together. Gabriel informs Daniel that God dispatched him the minute Daniel began to pray (9:23). With his prayer Daniel had fulfilled the last condition for Jerusalem's restoration.

What follows in 9:24-27 is the reinterpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years. Gabriel gives exilic Daniel an overview of the “future” down to the restoration of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus IV. The seventy years of Jeremiah become seventy weeks of years or four hundred ninety years, seven times the judgment Jeremiah had predicted. Four hundred ninety years, however, is both seventy Sabbath years and ten Jubilee years. There was precedent for reading the years as Sabbaths. Second Chronicles 36:21 had interpreted the seventy years of Jeremiah in terms of Sabbaths, of which there would have been ten. The author of Daniel 9 took that interpretation as his cue for reading the seventy years as seventy Sabbaths, which turn out to be ten Jubilees.

Stripped to its essence, Gabriel's timetable envisions two “anointed ones” coming at different times. First, seven weeks of years (or one Jubilee) will pass between the time the call goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of an “anointed one” (Joshua). Then sixty-two weeks of years or Sabbaths will pass before another “anointed one” (Onias III) will be cut off. Finally, one last week of years will pass, during which a “prince to come” (Antiochus IV) will make the sacrifices cease and will set up the “abomination that desolates” during the first half week. At the end of the second half week the desolator himself will meet his end. By implication, the devastation of the temple will end then as well.

These numbers are not as precise as they may seem, as the various efforts to interpret them make clear. Hence, a new suggestion is in order here. It seems unlikely that a second-century writer would have had the means to reconstruct precisely the dates of the exile, so the author of Daniel 9 himself must have set the first installment of time at seven weeks of years or one Jubilee.³⁵ Nor would he have known precisely how much time elapsed between the high priesthood of Joshua and the death of Onias III. He would have known, however, that almost seven years had passed from the death of Onias to his own time. Convinced that the end was imminent, he could position himself and his community late in the last Sabbath of the tenth and last Jubilee before the restoration. The time between the two “anointed ones” could then be estimated as sixty-two weeks of years.

From the above it is clear that these numbers constitute a periodization of history built around Sabbath and Jubilee years. If 2 Chr 36:21 interpreted Jeremiah to mean that the sins of the preexilic period would require ten Sabbath years of rest for atonement, Dan 9:24-27 interpreted him to mean the sins of the preexilic and postexilic periods would require ten jubilee years of rest for full atonement.

Daniel 9 is not alone in dividing history into Jubilees. In the Book of Jubilees, a period of seven years is called a “week of years,” and the time between Adam and the exodus is reckoned as 2,401 years, or 49 Jubilees. Clearly, the author has superimposed a system of Jubilees on the traditions he has utilized. Also 11QMelch 6-8 looks toward a “release of the captive,” mentioned in Isa 61:1, after ten Jubilees. This suggests that “Daniel” slightly anticipated the use of the concept of Jubilees as a way of thinking about time but did not develop the idea of Jubilees as thoroughly as the authors of these other documents did.³⁶

Goldingay, on the other hand, doubts that Daniel reflects Jubilee thinking, on the grounds that Daniel 9 does not use the term.³⁷ He is correct in claiming that the term is not used in the Book of Daniel, but that is not definitive: an author may use the concept without using the term, and the author of Daniel 9 does just that. The time given for the exile is seven weeks of years, which in fact constitute a Jubilee. To be sure, the next sixty-two weeks of years are not divided into Jubilees, but that is because the author mentions only one more event, the coming of the second “anointed one.” The death of Onias III took place less than a sabbath of years earlier than the writing of Daniel 9, and there was no need to speak of that event coming “eight and six-sevenths” Jubilees after the career of the first “anointed one.” The anticipated end, however, would come at the end of 490 years or ten Jubilees. So Daniel seems to represent a slightly earlier piece of eschatological speculation along lines taken later by the Book of Jubilees. Use of the solar calendar characteristic of Jubilees (Jub. 6:32-38) in Daniel cannot be proved, but it looks quite likely, and several scholars have offered calculations of the phrase “a time, times, and a half” in 12:11-12 based on a solar calendar.³⁸ The best case is made by Hartmut Gese. He shows that the three and a half years are calculated on the basis of a solar calendar, that they begin on the 7th of December (the 15th of Chislev) 167, slightly before the winter solstice, and run to the summer solstice on the 21st of June 163, a period of roughly 1,290 days (actually 1,293). The number 1,335 is 1,290 plus 45. Forty-five days after the summer solstice would be the 5th of August (the 24th of Ab). It was the day (or, this writer would suggest, the anniversary of the day) when the Jews returned to the open observance of Torah. By then the author of the addition expected not only the cleansing of the temple already carried out by the Maccabees but also the restitution of the status of Zion by those who had defiled it, the Seleucids.³⁹

Other features in Daniel show some similarity to the Book of Jubilees, but not as much. In Dan 7:25 there is a complaint that Antiochus attempted to change the “sacred seasons,” but the phrase gives no indication of what those seasons were, let alone how they were calculated. Likewise, the author of Daniel is interested in angels, but he does not share the interest of the author of Jubilees in demons. Further, Daniel 7-12 condemns Antiochus for disturbing the cosmic order, but that disturbance is articulated basically in terms of warfare, worship, and arrogance (7:21, 25; 8:12, 23-25; 11:20-45).

E. APOCALYPTIC RHETORIC

It seems clear that the author of Daniel 9 employed Sabbaths and Jubilees to periodize history. This periodization may be understood as an apocalyptic rhetorical device carrying his message of the coming of God's kingdom. Stephen O'Leary speaks of time as one of the special topoi of eschatology and describes the dilemma an apocalypticist faces. On the one hand, he must point to a date, or at least a general span of time, when conditions will improve. On the other hand, he needs to try to avoid being so specific that a delay in the timing of God's intervention will undercut his prediction.⁴⁰ The use of Sabbaths and Jubilees in Daniel 9 allowed its author to strike that balance.

III. CONCLUSION

This approach to Daniel 9 results in an integrated, consistent reading of the chapter. In it, vv. 1-2 constitute a reflection on the religiohistorical situation in which the community found itself ca. 165 b.c.e. Then vv. 3-20 (with the borrowed prayer in vv. 4b-19) explain why the full restitution of Jerusalem promised in Jeremiah 25 and 29 has not yet materialized: because the community needs to turn fervently to God and confess its sinfulness. Next, vv. 21-27 offer a timetable for that reconstruction—not a table of specific dates, however, but a periodization of history based on Sabbaths and Jubilees. This periodization has allowed the author to predict God's imminent deliverance of Jerusalem without pinpointing a specific time. While Antiochus IV did not die in exactly the circumstances described in 11:44-45, his demise surely would have seemed close enough to that prediction to substantiate the group's confidence in the Book of Daniel.

Notes

1. R. R. Wilson, “Unfulfilled Prophecy and the Development of the Prophetic Tradition,” a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1991.

2. D. Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993) 64.

3. L. E. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; New York: Doubleday, 1978) 250.

4. J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 355; cf. E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel (Torch Bible Commentary; London: SCM, 1956) 210.

5. J. B. Payne, “The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks,” JETS [Journal. Evangelical Theological Society] 21 (1978) 101.

6. J. F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971) 225.

7. M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1971) 144; J. J. Slotki, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah (8th ed.; London/New York: Soncino, 1985) 78. A. Bentzen (Daniel [HAT [Handbuch zum Alten Testament] 1/19; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1952] 74) suggests that Cyrus may have been the person in view but thinks that Joshua the high priest is more likely.

8. This identification goes back at least as far as Eusebius. See A. Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exposition,” IB [Introduction a le Bible], 6. 495.

9. J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927) 379; Hartman and Di Lella, Book of Daniel, 251; A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) 195.

10. See, for example, N. W. Porteous, Daniel (OTL [Old Testament Library]; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 142. H. Rigger (Siebzig Siebener: Die “Jahrwochenprophetie” in Dan 9 [Trierer theologische Studien 57; Trier: Paulinus, 1997] 261-62) makes the same point, noting the significance of Zechariah 3 for the issue.

11. Walvoord, Daniel, 227; cf. S. R. Miller, Daniel (New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994) 266.

12. Critical scholars typically adopt this position: cf. Bentzen, Daniel, 74; Collins, Daniel, 356; Lacocque, Book of Daniel, 196; Montgomery, Book of Daniel, 392.

13. Conservative Christian scholars identifying Jesus with the “anointed one who shall be cut off” include J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (TynOTC; Leicester/Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978) 176; Miller, Daniel, 267; Walvoord, Daniel, 228.

14. Traditional Christian scholars must dismiss the parallelism with 8:21-25, where the oppressor is a Greek king. Typically, they interpret Daniel 7 and 9 as references to Jesus and the Romans, while admitting that Daniel 8 refers to the Maccabean period.

15. Baldwin, Daniel, 176-78; Miller, Daniel, 242-49; B. K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976) 329.

16. The name Yahweh, of course, is appropriate to a prayer, though it does not appear in any of the doxologies in Daniel, not even in 2:20-23, which is ascribed to Daniel. Everywhere outside Daniel 9 the authors avoid the name. Hence, its use here can be cited in defense of separate authorship, though by itself that use is not decisive.

17. See D. L. Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” NIB [Navigantum atque Itinerarum Bibliotheca], 7. 122-27; cf. P. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 255-59. This is especially true of Dan 9:4-19 and Bar 1:15-3:8. R. A. Werline (Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution [SBLEJL 13; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998] 68-86) compares the two texts, drawing two conclusions: (1) the authors of penitential prayers intentionally reinterpret penitential traditions; (2) penitential prayers may be related to the interpretation of a biblical text, which is the case in Daniel 9.

18. Bentzen, Daniel, 75; H. L. Ginzberg, Studies in Daniel (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 14; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948) 33, 41; J. G. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” JBL [Journal of Biblical Literature] 95 (1976) 196; P. Grelot, “Soixante-dix semaines d'années,” Bib [Biblica] 50 (1969) 169; Hartman and Di Lella, Book of Daniel, 245-46. The most recent investigation of this issue is that of Rigger (Siebzig Siebener, 242-44), who argues that the original version of Daniel 9 was only nine lines long in Hebrew and included only parts of 9:1, 2, 24 plus 10:2-3. He thinks that the prayer was added in two subsequent revisions of chap. 9, one including vv. 9-14 plus parts of vv. 4, 20, 24, 25, 27, and a second completing the prayer and filling in other gaps in the narrative. With this analysis he ignores the existence of similar prayers, not all of which would have been composites.

19. G. H. Wilson, “The Prayer of Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29,” JSOT [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament] 48 (1990) 91-99.

20. S. E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993) 108.

21. Collins, Daniel, 347; J. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989) 236-37; Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” 122.

22. See Collins, Daniel, 347-48; Jeffery, “Book of Daniel,” 484; Lacocque, Book of Daniel, 178; Montgomery, Book of Daniel, 361-63; Porteous, Daniel, 135-39; and G. H. Wilson, “Prayer of Daniel 9,” 92, 94-98.

23. P. L. Redditt, “Daniel 11 and the Sociohistorical Setting of the Book of Daniel,” CBQ [Catholic Biblical Quarterly] 60 (1998) 463-74. Rigger (Siebzig Siebener, 241-42, 285) once again offers the Hasidaeans as the group behind Daniel, a view that is widely held but has been disproved convincingly by Collins, Daniel, 67-69.

24. R. R. Wilson (“From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion,” in Anthropological Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy [ed. R. C. Culley and T. W. Overholt; Semeia 21; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982] 88) argues that the entire book reflects the experiences and aspirations of a single group that changed over time.

25. K. J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 239.

26. Ibid., 238-39.

27. On the problem of two languages in Daniel, see especially Collins, Daniel, 12-20, 24-38; A. S. van der Woude, “Erwägungen zur Doppelsprachigkeit des Buches Daniel,” in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes, and Languages in the Near East, Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends (ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout, K. Jongeling, F. Leembius, and G. J. Reinik; Groningen: Forsten, 1986) 305-16.

28. Lacocque, Book of Daniel, 179.

29. Darius the Mede is said to have succeeded Belshazzar as king of Babylon (5:31, MT 6:1). Some scholars argue that he was a purely fictitious character, while others think he was some other person known to history. Nominees include (1) Astyages, the last certain Median ruler, (2) Cyaxares II, who is given as Astyages' successor by Xenophon but is unknown from Babylonian texts and is said to have been about 62 years old in 539, (3) Cyrus, who is said to have been king of the Medes and also to have been of the right age, (4) Cyrus' general Ugbaru, who actually captured Babylon for Cyrus and died a short time later, (5) a man named Gubaru, said to have been governor of Babylon and of the province Beyond the River, (6) Cambyses, who bore the title “king” even during Cyrus' lifetime, (7) Darius I, and even (8) Darius II. None, however, was ever called Darius the Mede in an extant text, nor was any the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes); see L. L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the Gestalt of Darius the Mede,” CBQ 50 (1988) 198-213.

30. G. H. Wilson, “Prayer of Daniel 9,” 93. Jer 25:11 and 29:10-11 specifically mention the seventy years, and 29:1 calls what follows a sēper.

31. R. R. Wilson, “Unfulfilled Prophecy,” passim.

32. See Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” 123-27, for a discussion of the similarity of Dan 9:4-20 to 1 Kings 8, Ezra 9, and Baruch 1-3.

33. Cited by Collins, Daniel, 357-58.

34. H. H. Rowley and H. L. Ginsberg framed their debate about the origin of the Book of Daniel around the question of its primarily second-century origin. Rowley (“The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in his collection The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament [2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1952] 260-80) argued for a single author who drew on and shaped traditions about Jews in exile and combined them with visions about the end of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, ultimately for persons in the Palestinian community suffering under Antiochus. Ginsberg (“The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” VT 4 [1954] 246-75) countered that Daniel 1-6 consists of a series of narratives by various authors, while Daniel 7-12 contains the visions of no fewer than four different apocalypticists from the time of Antiochus. Ginsberg seems generally correct, though the number of authors represented in the Book of Daniel remains in dispute.

35. To be sure, the author of Daniel 9 would have known the dates given in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles for the fall of Jerusalem and the dates given in 2 Chronicles and Ezra for the reign of Cyrus. The sequence of empires presupposed in the entire Book of Daniel, however, is Babylonian, Median, and Persian. This calls into question the knowledge of dates necessary for such a reconstruction.

36. The Book of Jubilees perhaps dates from 161-140 b.c.e. (see O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in OTP, 2. 43-44), and 11QMelch arose in the first century b.c.e. (see G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [3d ed.; London: Penguin Books, 1987] 300). On the use of the concept of Jubilees in Daniel 9, see Rigger, Siebzig Siebener, 187-94, 228-30.

37. Goldingay, Daniel, 232. He points to the Book of Leviticus as a more fruitful area to explore, because the idea of jubilees in Lev 25:8-17 is followed by the promise of restoration in Lev 26:40-42. However, there is far less about restoration in Dan 9:24-27 than there is about Jubilees. R. T. Beckwith (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies [AGAJU [Arbiten zur Gedischte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristientums] 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996] 261) argues that the author of Dan 9:25 either thinks in terms of jubilees or is thinking of a twofold rebuilding of Jerusalem. He cites 1 Enoch, Jubilees (p. 219), and 11QMelch (pp. 223, 232) as works influenced by a “Jubilee” reading of Dan 9:24-27.

38. Cf. J. van Goudoever, “The Indications in Daniel that Reflect the Usage of the Ancient Theoretical So-called Zadokite Calendar,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude; BETL 105; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993) 533-38; P. M. Bogaert, “La chronologie dans la dernière vision de Daniel,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentine Nikiprowetzky (ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud; Collection de la REJ 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 207-11.

39. H. Gese, “Die dreieinhalb Jahre des Danielbuches,” in Ernten was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rosel; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) 414-21. He sees Dan 12:5-10, 13 as an independent passage written sometime in the year 164, later than Dan 10:1-12:4, with a twofold message: on the one hand, the “end” will come in three and a half years, and on the other hand, it will usher in eschatological events. Verses 11-12, according to Gese, are a single addition meant to explicate the meaning of “three and a half years.”

40. S. D. O'Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 204.