25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> History of an Interpretation 25<br />

Jewish rabbis were the first to begin applying this way of counting<br />

prophetic time beyond the two references cited, and they did this<br />

with the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27, the first verse of<br />

which states: “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your<br />

holy city to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to<br />

atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both<br />

vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” 2<br />

Despite this, the fact is that the “year-day” application was not<br />

stated as a general principle until the first century C.E., by the rabbi,<br />

Akibah ben Joseph (c. 50–132 C.E.). 3<br />

Hundreds of years passed and it was only at the beginning of the<br />

ninth century that a number of Jewish rabbis began to extend the<br />

year-day principle to other time periods in the book of Daniel.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se included the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14,<br />

and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11, 12, all of which<br />

were viewed as having Messianic implication.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first of these rabbis, Nahawendi, considered the 2,300<br />

“evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 as years, counting them<br />

from the destruction of Shiloh (which he dated to 942 B.C.E.) to<br />

the year 1358 C.E. In that year he expected the Messiah would<br />

come! 4<br />

Nahawendi was soon followed by others, such as Saadia ben<br />

Joseph from the same century and Solomon ben Jeroham from the tenth<br />

century. <strong>The</strong> latter applied the year-day principle to the 1,335 days<br />

of Daniel 12:12. Counting them from the time of Alexander the<br />

Great, he arrived at the year 968 C.E. as the date for the<br />

redemption of Israel.<br />

<strong>The</strong> famous rabbi, Rashi (1040–1105), ended the 2,300 year-days<br />

in 1352 C.E., when he thought the Messiah would come.<br />

2 While this prophecy speaks of weeks, this of itself does not mean that it lends<br />

itself to an application of the “year-day principle.” To a Jew the Hebrew word for<br />

“week,” shabû’a, did not always signify a period of seven days as in English.<br />

Shabû’a literally means a “(period of) seven,” or a “heptad.” <strong>The</strong> Jews also had a<br />

“seven” (shabû’a) of years. (Leviticus 25:3, 4, 8, 9) True, when “weeks of years”<br />

were meant, the word for “years” was usually added. But in the later Hebrew this<br />

word was often left to be understood as implied. When “weeks of days” were<br />

meant, the word for “days” could sometimes be appended, as in the other passage<br />

in Daniel where shabû’a is found. (10:2, 3) Daniel 9:24, therefore, simply asserts<br />

that “seventy sevens are determined,” and from the context (the allusion to the<br />

“seventy years” in verse 2) it may be concluded that “seventy sevens of years” are<br />

intended. It is because of this apparent textual connection—and not because of<br />

any “year-day principle”—that some translations (Moffatt, Goodspeed, AT, RS) read<br />

“seventy weeks of years” in Daniel 9:24.<br />

3 Froom, Vol. II, pp. 195, 196.<br />

4 Ibid., p. 196. Nahawendi also counted the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 as a period<br />

of years, beginning with the destruction of the second temple [70 C.E.] and<br />

thereby arriving at the same date, 1358 C.E.<br />

25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!