27 pact on the study of the Jewish apocalypses, especially as it involves the recov-
The 70 Weeks of Years in Jewish Chronography of the Second Temple Period
THE OLD GREEK RENDERING OF DAN 9:24-27
An early attempt to update the chronology of the 70 year-weeks in the light of the subsequent events of Hasmonean history appears in the Old Greek (OG) translation of Daniel. It is well known that the translation’s deviation from
‘Hebraica veritas’ was at least partly to blame for the early Church’s sub- sequent replacement of it with the version of ‘Theodotion’.‘7 Although there are many conceivable explanations as to why the OG exercised such seeming lat- itude in the translation of Dan 9:24-27, one of the motives was to shape the wording to correspond as closely as possible with recent events as the translator(s) understood them.18
In the Hebrew version of the passage, ‘heptads’ uniformly refer to year- weeks. By contrast, the Greek translators use the corresponding Greek term
&(360@6~ only sporadically. Where they do employ this word, they appear to understand an actual seven-day week. I9 Elsewhere, the translators have aban- doned the idea of ‘year-weeks’ in favor of straightforward reckoning in years, which they render either by the Greek word xaQoi or ETA. Thus, the OG version of the relevant portion of vv 26 and 27 is the following: ‘(26a): And after seven and 70 and 62
(xa1 pm& Mh
xa‘l 8PGo~fjxovzaxa’l E&jxovta 660;
cf. MT: P'ltil D'tt)tD D'YXQ TlNl), an anointing will be taken away and it will not be... (27) And at the completion of times(avvt&lav xau$b),
and after seven and 70 periods (xaleoti@ and 62 years @zv) up to the time of the completion of the war, the desolation will be taken away in the strengthening of the covenant for many weeks (nohh& Efi60@6ag).“~ In this highly par- aphrastic rendering of the 70 heptads, only 139 years have been assigned to the duration of the city and sanctuary.,
The ‘sad mess’ created by the OG translation of the 70 year-weeks may be
the result, as Montgomery has suggested, of confusing the Hebrew ‘weeks’
with the identical word ‘seventy’.*’ There is, however, a distinctive historical viewpoint informing this interpretation. Fraidl has offered the plausible sug- gestion that the chronology of 139 years is reckoned according to the Seleucid era.22 According to 1 Mace l:lO, Antiochus Epiphanes acceded to power in 137 of this era. From this chronological perspective, the translators’ 139 years refer to the period of Seleucid rule preceding Antiochus’ inauguration of measures against Jerusalem, the priesthood and the temple cult. One gets a clear sense of the historical vantage point of the translators in their interpretation of the final eschatological year-week. In the Hebrew version, the vision foretells that dur- ing the last half of this year-week, there would come an end to Antiochus’
sacrilege against the temple. This may be the only part of the vision in which the seer expresses a genuine future hope. But the wording of the OG implies that in the eyes of the translators the final week had already been realized in the temple reforms instituted by Judas - reforms apparently still fresh in their minds.23
One of the notable features of the Hebrew text of Daniel’s apocalypse of 70 weeks is its absence of a messianic expectation. The ‘two anointed ones’ in Dan 9:25-26 are simply historical figures in the succession of Jewish high priests, Jeshua and Onias III. The OG translation also takes the minimalist view, per- haps even more so than the Hebrew:
9:24: OG: dq@wa~ &ytov dyiov
I7 So Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 1.4.5a (88 1.818-28). The OG of Daniel survives in only two mss and in the Syrohexapla. The Old Greek is given alongside Theodotion in Ziegler’s edition. The designation ‘Theodotion’ is a somewhat misleading term that conceals the complexity of the devel- opment of this version; ‘Theodotionic’ readings are attested before Theodotion. For discussion of the Greek texts of Daniel, see Grelot, ‘Les versions grecques’; Hartman - Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, X-84.
Ix For discussion of the theological interests of the Old Greek text of Dan 9:24-27, see Bludau, Die alexandrinische Uhersetzung, 104- 130; also Swete, Introduction, 43f.
” Cf 9:24 k@op@ovza &PGop&hcg 9:27 EY t@ z&t tfis EP6op66oq That the translators understood the term as an actual week is implied by their version of 9:27, where they render the Hebrew ‘Ii% i)lX with the Greek ‘nohhixg &[36op66ag’. The translator here has rendered the Hebrew as ‘many weeks’, because as elsewhere he imagines the weeks as seven-day intervals. At the same time, however, he recognizes that this duration would hardly constitute a satisfactory chronology for the purification of the temple and reconstruction of the city.
‘I’ For the meaning of xaqoi as years, see also Dan 12:7.
” Montgomery, Daniel, 380.
9:26b: OG: xai f3acnheia Ebb cp&eei zip n6htv lcai t6 Byiov pxh to6 xeto-
TOi?
MT: Ef3;l -r’X DY n’!ltD’ tD-r371 l'Y;[l
At ~24, the word
Eticpe&vaI
in all likelihood translates through metathesis tl& instead of ilL!&. The expression &ylov 6yiov is a literal rendering of the Hebrew and could refer either to an individual or the sanctuary.24 At ~25, 22 Fraidl, Die Exegese, 6-8. See also Bludau, Die alexandrinische tibersetzung, 120-23; Mont- gomery, Daniel, 395. Arguing against this suggestion is Jeansonne, Old Greek Translution, 121.23 At ~27, the Old Greek states that at ‘the end of times, and after the 77 periods and 62 years up to the time of the conclusion of the war, the desolation will be taken away in the strengthening of the covenant for many weeks’. Fraidl, Die Exegese, 9 suggests that by the word &aOljxq (9:27), the translators understood the agreement that Hasideans concluded with the Hasmonean leadership (cf 1 Mace 2:27-48). For an opposing view, see Jeansonne, Old Greek Translation, 129f.
24 Since the expression appears with uYqq&va~ (‘to gladden’), Bludau, Die ulewndrirli.sc,kr iiher- setzung, 107 and Fraidl, Die Exegese, 6 maintain that &ytov dyiov must refer to an individual, either Daniel himself or the highpriest. However, the following verse refers
Jerusalem, and v26 speaks of the destruction of the sanctuary (~6 &ytov).
rebuildingOf
208 CHAPTER FIVE ‘I‘HE Al’()(‘Al.YI”I‘I(‘ SIIRVl.lY 01; t1IS’I‘ORY 209
where the MT has ‘an anointed one, a prince’, the OG gives simply ‘to the Lord’. This contrasts with the later translators, who consistently speak of some future anointed individua12’ The OG translation of v26 reveals the same ‘non- messianic’ tendency. Whereas the Hebrew and some of the later versions refer to the cutting off of an ‘anointed one’, the OG speaks instead only of the removal of ‘anointing’. Whether or not this reflects the Hebrew word, l%n, the translators clearly did not envisage here the removal of a messianic figure, but rather the cessation of a ritual function or office. Verse 27 contains the only clear allusion to the removal of an ‘anointed one’. Construing the Hebrew nf) as ‘with’, the translators render the expression 11’13 m5) as p&z& zoc
pmoii
Presumably, this is in reference to the murder of the high priest Onias III.simply independent use of a popular apocalyptic formulation. But it is clear from the testimony of both Josephus and the Jewish chronicle Seder Olam that the process of updating and reinterpreting Daniel’s vision of 70 weeks persisted in Judaism up to and even after the destruction of the temple in 70.
In general, it may be said that the lexical choices of the OG reveal an orientation that is historical and retrospective, focusing far more on the cessa- tion and Maccabean restoration of sacerdotal functions than on the coming of the eschatological age or a future ‘anointed one’. This perspective is sharply at variance with the later development. As we shall see, Christian commentators had their own reasons for extracting messianic content from the passage. And intensifying apocalyptic fervor, ignited by the turbulent events in Jewish history preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, revitalized the eschatological dimension of the prophecy.
Insofar as the periodization of Daniel’s 70 heptads was marked by the in- vestiture, succession, and ‘cutting off of the anointed’, it is to be expected that continuing reassessment of the 70 heptads by Jewish interpreters sometimes focused on a perceived disruption in or pollution of the office of the high priest.
One example of this appears in a notoriously cryptic section of the Greek Testament of Levi. After a lurid description of the abasement of the office, the author forecasts 70 weeks during which the priesthood will be profaned. Given its representation as a testament from Levi to his sons, one should not be surprised to find the author attributing his knowledge to the ‘writing of Enoch’, the latter a popular figure of apocalyptic and scribal authority in Judaism of the time.28
DANIEL 9 IN JEWISH ‘APOCALYPTIC CHRONOGRAPHY’
Although chronological and messianic schemes similar to Daniel’s 70 year- weeks are pervasive in the Jewish literature of the second temple period, very little survives that is in any way comparable to the fully developed verse-by- verse commentaries on the passage found in later Christian interpreters. The authors of these works rarely quote directly from the relevant passage in Daniel, and the periodization of the 70 weeks typically does not conform to the Daniel- ic pattern of periodization into seven and 62 weeks, plus one. For this reason it is difficult to ascertain whether the use of parallel chronological devices in apocalyptic26 and sectarian27 literature implies direct influence from Daniel 9 or
,
It is regrettable that the Qumran Aramaic fragments do not include this portion of the testament. For the Greek recension of the work has been left in a sad state of disrepair by Christian reworking. The author states at 16:l that he has learned ‘that for 70 weeks you shall go astray, and profane the priesthood and pollute the priesthood’. As if to imply that Levi has already detailed the chronology of 70 weeks, the following chapter commences with the words,
‘Whereas you have heard concerning the 70 weeks’. But the intervening materi- al, which shows evidence of extensive Christian interpolation, contains no dis- cussion of the 70 weeks chronology. Instead, it mainly epitomizes the polemic against the priesthood in chap. 14 and 15. To add to the confusion, the rest of chap. 17 offers a timetable of the corruptions of the Jerusalem priesthood, based on a garbled and fragmentary sequence of seven (or possibly ten) jubilees
25 See below at n93.
26 For chronological schemes bearing a possible relationship to Daniel’s 70 heptads, see, for exam- ple, As. Mos. 10: 12, and especially the shepherd-vision of 1 Enoch’s animal apocalypse (1 Enoch 89:59-90:2.5; see also the 70 generations in 1 Enoch 10). Although the shepherd-vision contains certain similarities with Daniel’s vision of 70 weeks, it is in all likelihood independent of and possibly earlier than it. Here Enoch has a vision of 70 shepherds symbolizing the 70 angels who are commissioned to rule over Israel for a specific period of time correlated with the number of angels exercising dominion (12 + 23 + 23 + 12). Like Daniel 9, the vision of 70 shepherds is cast in the form of an allegorical historical survey, commencing either with Babylonian or Assyrian dom- ination and culminating with the Maccabean revolt and the advent of the eschatological age. For discussion of apocalyptic use of 70-week schemes, see Fraidl, Die Exegese, I I- 18, 27-29; Russell, Method mnd Message, 195-202; Beckwith, ‘Daniel 9’; Beale, The Use
of
Daniel, 83-85, 310.” In the introduction to the Damascus Document, the author attempts to sanctify his community’s
history and expected eschatological triumph by weaving into the narrative a chronology probably derived from Ezek 4:4-6 and Dan 9:24-27. The introduction of that document describes how ‘in the epoch of wrath’, God visited his people ‘390 years after he had given them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and raised up a godly community in their midst’. The work then recounts a period of groping for 20 years until God raised up a ‘Teacher of Righteousness to lead them in the way of His heart’. After the teacher’s death, another 40 years are to elapse ‘until the consuming of all the men of war who returned with the man of falsehood’. The 390 years is apparently based on Ezek 4:4-6, where Ezekiel is instructed to lie on his left side to bear the punishment of Israel. If one estimates the age of the Teacher of Righteousness at death as 40, this would yield a total of 490 years, in conformity with the 70 year weeks of Daniel 9. See Bruce, Biblical Exe,gesis, S9f; Russell.
Method and Message, 199f; Martens, Das Buch Daniel, 84-90; Talmon, Jewish Civilizution, 254- 56; Hahn, ‘Josephus und die Eschatologie’, 172-7.5. For the use of schemes similar to the 70 heptads in other Qumran texts, see most recently, Dimant, ‘The Seventy Weeks Chronology’; also, Milik, The Books of Enoch, 248-58; Beckwith, ‘Significance of the Calendar’, 167-179; Huggins.
‘Book of Periods’.
” T. Levi 14:1; 16:l.
210 1’111: AI’O<‘AI.YI~I’I~‘ SIIKVI:Y 01. IlIs'I‘oIIY 21 I whose relationship to the 70 weeks is uncertain.2” Although the manifest diffi-
culties of the preserved text make it virtually impossible to determine the his- torical referents or the extent of dependence on Dan 9:24-27, it is clear that the author of the Testament of Levi found in the chronology of 70 weeks a way to vent bitter indignation against the transgressions of the Hasmonean high priest- hood and to express his expectation of the appearance of a new and purified messianic priesthood.30
Traces of this continuous reapplication of Daniel 9 also survive in Josephus’
several chronological schemes for the chronology and high-priestly succession of the second temple period. The wide divergence of these systems from one another has led to a general assumption that Josephus must have gotten them from different sources. Detailed analysis of these schemes by I. L&y and later A. Ehrhardt has shown persuasively that several of these chronological schemes are vestiges of an early and ongoing tradition of what Levy calls ‘chronologie apocalyptique’ based on the disruption in the succession of the ‘anointing’ after the 62 weeks (434 years) of Daniel’s vision.31
As Ehrhardt suggests, this tradition of reinterpretation of Daniel’s prophecy may explain, for example, Josephus’ conflicting chronologies of the succession of the Jewish high priests after Alcimus.32 In the 12th book of his Antiquities, Josephus states that after the death of Alcimus, ‘the people gave the high priesthood to Judas.. . And (Judas) held the high priesthood for three years when he died’ .33 In the 13th book, Josephus then records that Jonathan ‘put on the high-priestly robe four years after the death of Judas Maccabeus, this being four years after the death of his brother Judas--for there had been no high priest during this time .’ 34 As Ehrhardt and others have noted, this tradition contradicts the succession of the high priests that Josephus records in the 20th book of the Antiquities. Here Josephus is entirely silent about Judas’ term as high priest, stating instead that after holding the office of high priest for three years, Alci-
29 For various attempts to resolve the textual problems of this section of the Testament of Levi, see De Jonge, Testaments, 40-42; HultgHrd, L’eschatologie 2, 117- 12 1; Becker, Untersuchungen, 283-8; Beckwith, ‘Significance of the Calendar’, 173-79. The (Ps-) Ezekiel document from Qurnran (4Q384-90) also records a polemic against the high priesthood possibly based on 70 heptads; it speaks of ten jubilees, subdivided into heptads, during which the sons of Aaron transgressed.
“’ Charles, APOT 2, 312 ad lot thinks that the composition of this passsage is demonstrably later than the rest of this section and dates from the years 70-50 BCE. He suggests that the author’s characterization of the priesthood’s corruption most closely fits the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. On the other hand, Milik, The Books of Enoch, 252f dates the composition of the original Aramaic form of the Testament of Levi earlier than the composition of Daniel, to the third or even the end of the fourth century BCE. See also Bruce, ‘Book of Daniel’, 23Of, and ‘Biblical Exegesis’, 61f.
” Levy, ‘Les soixante-dix semaines’; Ehrhardt, Apostolic Succession, 49-53. For analysis of Jo- sephan chronological systems for the second temple period based on Dan 9:24-27, see also von Destinon, Chronologie, 3Of; Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, 47, 56, 75ff.; Schurer, Geschichte 3, 189.
I2 Ehrhardt ib; Levy ib.
” Josephus, Ant. 12.414, 434.
” Ant. 13.46.
mus died without leaving a successor. Only after an interregnum of seven years was Jonathan appointed to that office.” The same tradition is reflected in the succession of high priests recorded in 1 Maccabees. Like Josephus, 1 Macca- bees records a seven-year interregnum before Jonathan’s succession. In this version, Judas was unable to succeed Alcimus to the priesthood, because Alci- mus had outlived him.36
In Ehrhardt’s view, the three years of Alcimus’ rule and the seven year interregnum before Jonathan’s accession preserve a contemporary interpretation of the Jewish high priesthood devised by Jason of Cyrene and based on Da- niel’s apocalypse of 70 weeks.37 The three years of rule that Jason credited to Alcimus were intended to confirm the prediction in Dan 9:27 that ‘in the midst of the week, sacrifice and oblation shall cease’. Pursuing an eschatological purpose, this chronology saw the seven-year interregnum between 159 and 152 as the calamitous 70th heptad in Daniel’s vision, after which sin would be abolished. For what Ehrhardt calls ‘patriotic reasons’, this list was subsequently revised to include a three-year priesthood for Judas, thereby reducing the length of Jonathan’s term of office from seven to four years3* It is this revision that is represented in Josephus’ alternate succession list.
Elsewhere, Josephus preserves chronological traditions that may reveal the same influence of Daniel 9. It is well known that Josephus consistently over- estimated the duration of the era of the second temple. In the Jewish War, for example, he is about 50 years too high in his calculation of the 589-year period from the rebuilding of the temple to its capture under Vespasian.“’ In the Antiq- uities, he also miscalculates Aristobulus’ accession by about the same number of years, asserting here that Aristobulus began his reign 481 years and three months after the ‘people had come home from the Babylonian captivity’.40 Since Aristobulus I reigned for one year, the author of this chronology must have believed that his successor, Alexander Jannaeus, began his rule 483 years after Cyrus’ edict, that is the 62th heptad (7 + 62) of Daniel’s vision.
Ehrhardt proposes that this interpretation must have come from Pharisaic opponents of Alexander fairly early in his reign.41 Vigorously opposed to Jan-
‘s Ant. 20.237-238: ‘No one succeeded him; and the city continued for seven years without a high priest. Then the descendants of the son of Asamonaios, entrusted with the rulership of the nation...
resumed the tradition, appointing as high priest Jonathan, who held office for for seven years.’
36 1 Mace 954; 10:21. Here it is stated that Alcimus ascended to the priesthood in the 153rd year of the Seleucid era (159 BCE) and died in the year 160 (152 BCE).
j7 Ehrhardt, Apostolic Succession, 52.
‘* ib 50. For a different interpretation, see Levy, ‘Les soixante-dix semaines’, 167f.
” See J.W. 6.270, where he assigns 639 years, 45 days to this period.
4o Ant. 13.301: ‘After their father’s death, the eldest son Aristobulus saw fit to transform the government into a kingdom, which he judged the best form, and he was the first to put a diadem on his head, 481 years and three months after the time when the people were released from the Babylonian captivity and returned to their own country.’ The actual duration of time was approxi- mately 434 years.
” Ehrhardt, Apostolic Succession, 53; but cf Levy, ‘Les soixante-dix semaines’, 166f.