the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus).

B. The more considerate and scientific ex-
positors of the critical school conceive of the
passage as belonging to the times of Antiochu*
Epiphanes, and as a Vnticinium ex ecentu relat-
ing to that age. In this view they were pre-
ceded by numerous Jewish and a few Christian
representatives of the Maccaba^an interpreta-
tion (e.g.. by Julius HUjirLanus, about A.D. 400 ;
by Marsham, an Englishman [Canon chron., p.
(jlO ss.], the Jesuit Harduin [0;^). selecta, p.
593 ss.; cf. Kohler, De Harduin noea sed inepta
interpretatione vatic, apmi Dan. de 70 hebd.,
Altorf, 1721], and the English free-thinker Ant.
Collins [Scheme of- Liter<d Pro^)hecy, Lond.,
1726]). So Corrodi (Krit. Qesch. des Ghilinsnius,
p. 247 et seq., and Freiniiithige Vcrsiiche iiber
verschiedene in Tlievlogie und biblische Krilik
einschligende Materien, p. 42 etseq.), who, how-
ever, introduced much that is arbitr.117 in devel-
oping his scheme. He renewed, for instance,
the questionable expedient of transposing the
weeks [see No. 4 (3)], reckoning first sixty-two
hebdomads from the beginning of the captivity
to the first invasion of Judaja by Epiphanes, then
seven hebdomads from the date of the composi-
tion of the book of pseudo-Daniel to the Mac-
cabasan Messiah, who, it is alleged, was expected
to appear about the year B.C. 115, and finally
inserting a single hebdomad between the two
former periods, to which last week he assigns
the actual persecutions, which involved, e.g.. the
murder of Onias III., the interruption of the
sacrifices, etc. — Another representative of this
tendency is Eichhom {AUgem. Bibliuthek de)
biblisehen Literatur, III., 761 et seq.) who follows
the method by parallelism [No. 4 (1)] rather
than that of transposition, calculating the first
seven hebdomads backwards from the edict of
Cyrus in B.C. 536 to the destruction of Jerusa
lem by Nebuchadnezzar, but reckoning the sixty-
two weeks forward from the fourth year of .Je-
hoiakim (B.C. 605) to Ant. Epiphanes. and tha
final week from the death of Onias to the res-
toration of the temple services by Judas Mao-



210



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



cabaaus. — Eichhom's hypothesis found an ad- 1
herent in v. Ammon. who adopted it in his ;
Biblischc Theohgie (U. 217 et seq. ) with hut few ,
changes ; but Bertholdt opposed it with keen
criticism, and advanced instead the following
explanation : "seventy weeks of years are de-
termined upon the Jews until the expiation of
their sin [i. e., to the dedication of the temple by
Judas Maccabjeus). and, more particularly, from
the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnez-
zar to the reign of Cyrus, forty-nine years or
seven weeks of years ; within a period of sirty-
two further weeks of years Jerusalem is to be
rebuilt (hence to the time of Epiphanes). At
about the end of these sixty-two weeks (? !)
Alexander the Gr. dies, without leaving a natur-
al successor. Afterward Jerusalem is desolated
by Antiochus Epiphanes, who forms an alliance
with numerous apostate Je%vs, that continues
during nearly a week of years. At the middle
of that week he interrupts the temple services
and erects the statue of Jupiter Olympus on a
wing of the temple — until death overtakes him."
So far as the chronological order of the seven
and sixty-two weeks is concerned, this exposi-
tor is therefore not a parallelist, but a represen-
tative of the theory that they denote successive
periods. To obviate the exorbitant interval of
sixty-two weeks of years between B.C. .136 and
B.C. 175, he assumes that, as a whole, the state-
ments by the oracle respecting time " are not to
be taken mathematically, but prophetically and
indefinitely " (p. 613) ! — Bertholdt's theory is
accepted by Griesinger (Ktue Ansidd ilcr Auf-
stlUe im Bitch Dnniel, 181.5, p. 92) and substan-
tially also by Bleek. The latter (Theolxj.
Ztitsclir. of Sclileiermacher. deWette. and L icke,
1.S22, and Jahrhb. f. d. ThedUtgU, 1860) differs
from Bertholdt in several particulars, c..'/., in not
dating the commencement of the first seven
weeks of years from the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, but from the prophetic oracle of Jeremiah,
chapters xxv. and xxix, , and in extending the
sixty-two weeks exactly to the death of Seleu-
cus Philopater (the H^w^ without a successor,
V. 26). But they are entirely agreed in placing
the seven, sixty-two, and one weeks in succes-
sion to each otlaer, and in most positively reject-
ing every parallelism or transposition of these
periods, as being contrary to the sense of the
vision {Jnhrbb., etc., p. 83). — H. L. Reichel {Die
â– cier Welti-eiche des Propheten. Daniel, in the
Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1848) and Kamphausen in
Bunsen's Bibehrerk advocate views similar to
those of Bleek, excepting that the latter holds
that the "anointed one" of v. 26 denotes the
high priest Onias, instead of Seleucus Philopater.
. — Several others, however, again made use of
parallelisms, e.g., Rosch (Die 70 Jnhriroch-
en des Buch^s Daniel, geiiau chronohgisch
Wichgemexen, Stud. u. Krit., 1834), v. Lengerke,
and Hitzig. The first takes the year B.C. 609
as the starting-point of the tiro parallel epochs
a.s being the year which the alleged pseudo-
Daniel assumed for the destruction of Jerusa-
lem. The seven weeks of years, beginning at
that date, were to continue until the commence-
ment of the reign of Cyrus. B C. 560. and the
«ixty-two weeks until the death of Seleucus
Philopater, the "anointed one who should be
cut off j " but this period is lengthened by the



addition of eight farther weeks, which reach to
B.C. 120 or to John Hyrcanus. the political
Messiah of Judaism in the Maccabsean period.
Von Lengerke likewise regards the seven and
the sixty-two years as being parallel, but dateg
them from B.C. 588. The sixty- wo were to ex-
pire with the murder of Seleucus Philopater,
the "anointed one," v. 26 (although this is said
to involve an error of 21-22 years in the reckon-
ing of pseudo-Daniel, since the 434 years, it
calculated from 588. would, in fact, reach to
B.C. 154), and the seventieth week was to reach
from 170 to the death of Antiochus in B.C. 164.
There is consequently a gap of about six years
between the close of the sixty-second week and
the beginning of the last! Hitzig subjects this
hypothesis of v. Lengerke to a searching criti-
cism, but on his part, likewise adopts an arbi-
trary explanation based on parallelisms. He (a)
inserts the seven weeks of years between B.C.
588 and 539 ; (A) the sixty -t« o weeks or 434
years, on the other hand, are reckoned back-
ward, from B.C. 172 to B.C. 606. the year in
which Jeremiah uttered his prophecy respecting
the seventy years ; (c) the seventieth week ex-
tends from" April, B.C. 170, to the end of March,
164, and the murder of Onias. the " anointed
one," V. 26, falls in the beginning of this last
week. This hypothesis comes nearest to that of
Eichhom, from which it differs merely in reck-
oning the seven weeks forward from 588, and
the sixty-two backward from 172. while Eich-
hom counts the .seven weeks in a retrograde
order, and the sixty-two progressively. — A pe-
culiar mode of reckoning was adopted by Ewald,
which may be characterized as the abbreviating
method. It first reckons the seven weeks of
years from B. C. 588 to 539, and the sixty-two
weeks from thence to B. C. 105, but then assumes
a shortening of the latter period of 434 years
by seventy (which reduction, it is alleged, was
formerly indicated in the text itself by a note
after v. 25 or v. 27 that has now been lost), and
by this method returns to the year B.C. 175, in
which the " anointed one was cut off," i.e.. in
which Seleucus Philopater died — and approxi-
mately at the same time, the year in which the
momentous last week began, which extends
from B.C. 174 to 167 (p. 424 et seq.). — Wieseler
in substance (in his treatise. Die 70 ^Yochen,
formerly followed the method of parallelism
etc., Gottingen, 1839), but at a later period pre-
ferred a peculiar modification of the transposing
method (in his review of the Times of Daniel,
by the duke of Manchester, Giitt. Get- Am. ,
1846). In the former instance he reckoned the
sixty-two weeks from B.C. 606 to B.C. 172, and
the last week from 172-165, and regarded the
seven weeks as not admissible or to be counted be-
side the other sixty-three (pp. 102 et seq. ; 123 et
seq. ) ; but in the latter, while he continues to reck-
on the sixty-three weeks from B.C. 606-165. he
places the seven weeks after them, as represent-
ing the period which was to elapse between the
week of severe tribulation and the advent of
the Messiah (the 1^3: "'^r "?, v. 25, who is to be
carefully distinguished from the '^'r'? men-
tioned in V. 26, where Onias is intended). This
period, which must not be calculated with
mathematical exactness, but is to be interpreted
spiritually, denotes a jubilee cycle, that has



CHAP. IX. 1-37.



211



grown from a period of fifty years into one of
more than 150 years, since Christ was bom 160
years after the date of its beginning (p. 131 et
seq.). Wieseler's modification of the transpos-
ing method may be denominated the lenytltciuiif/
hypothesis, in contradistinction from Ewald's
abbreviating method. It obviously forms the
point of transition to the Messianic conception
jf the text, and is intimately connected with
the views of several representatives of the
typical-Messianic interpretation in the latest
'times.

6. The most recent Messianic es^positors are
divided into two classes, who advocate re-
spectively a direct-Messianic interpretation of
the proi>hecy, or one that is merely typically
Messianic. *

A. To the former class belong Less {Beioeis
der WiiJii-heit der cliristlicheii lielii/ion, p. 275
et seq. ), Sack {Apologetik, p. 388 et seq. ), Scholl
iCommentatio de Sept. liehrhnvidibns Ddnielis,
Francof. , 1831), Dereser, Havernick. Hengsten-
berg, Allioli, Reinke, Stawars, Sepp, Weigl, Aub-
erlen, Duke George of Manchester, Pusey, Klie-
f oth, etc. [including the great body of English and
American expositors, with the almost sole excep-
tion of Moses Stuart] . In general, they are agreed
in referring both the 1^?: ^'^r?' ^- -'^' '^"'^ ^^^
ni3'5, V. 36, to Jesus Christ, but they differ
considerably as to the special terminus a giio of
the prophecy, or its terinians ad (/iiein. A ma-
jority regard the twentieth year of Artaxerxes
Iiongimanna. or B.C. 4.55 (Neh. i. 1 ; ii 1) as
the starting point of the seventy weeks or the
date of the ^ST S27a. They count sixty-nine
weeks of years, or 483 years, from that date to
the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,
twenty- eight asr. Dionysius, or 783 a. u. c. (Luke
iii. 1), when the three and a half yeai-sof public
activity on the part of our Lord began. They
consequently place the Saviour's death and re-
surrection in the middle of the last week, and
refer the ib psi n^:i-?3 t"3',v. 2G, to his cru-
cifixion. The remaining three and a half years
are regarded as a more or less variable terminus,
admitting of no precise chronological determina-
tion, but rather transpiring indefinitely in the
course of the founding of Christianity (so Less,
Sack, SchoU. Dereser, Hiivemick, Hengstenberg,
Allioli, Reinke). Modifications of this theory
are advocated (1) by Fr. Stawars (-Die Wei.<.sa-
guny Daniels ix. 34-27 in Dezug nnf dfis Tanf-
jahrjesu, in the 2'iihinger 'Iheol. Qtiartiilsc/irift,
1868, No. III., p. 416 et seq.), who translates
-|:T SSb p, V. 35, '-from the fulfilment of
God's promise to rebuild Jerusalem," and con-
tends that that promise was fulfilled in connec-
tion with the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a city^
under Nehemiah, in the year 458 ; from that
time to twenty-six fer. Diony.sius 483 years or
sixty-nine weeks elapsed, and immediately af-
terward, in Jan. 37. Jesus was baptized in the
Jordan by John ; (2) by Auberlen and Pusey,
who begin the seventy weeks in B. C. 458, or the
seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra
vii. 7), instead of the twentieth year of that
reign, and thus obtain the twenty-sixth year of
onr eera as the c lose of the sixty-nine weeks, or

• Cf. Kllcfoth, Daniel, p. 329 et Beq.



the time of our Lord's baptism ; (3) by Sepp
(Leben Jesu. I., p. 248 et seq., second ed, ), who
regards Ezra as the spiritual rebuilder of Jeru-
salem, and therefore reckons from the year B.C.
460. locating the baptism of Jesus in the yeai
778 a. u . c. , or A.D. 25 ; (4) by Weigl ( Ueher dai
uahre Geburts- und Sterbe-jahr Jesu C/irisii,
Part I., p. 103 et seq.), who renders the words
at the commencement of v. 25 " from the cfe-
cution of the command to rebuild Jerusalem,"
etc. . and begins the seventy weeks with the year
B.C. 453, thus obtaining the year 783 a u. c. , or
A.D. 30, as the time of our Lord's baptism ; (5)
by Duke George of Manchester (in the work re-
viewed by Wieseler, Tlie times of Daniel, chrono-
logical and prophetic(d, examined with relation to
the point of contact betieeeii sacred and profane
chronology, Lond. and Edinb., 1845), who takes
the first year of Darius Medus as the terminus a
quo of the seventy weeks — identifying that
monarch with Darius Nothus, like Tertul-
lian, Scaliger, Calvisius, etc. — and therefore
calculates the 490 years from B.C. 424, which
brings him to A.D. 60, the year in which the
Christians fled from the besieged citj' of Jerusa-
lem, and in which the Christian church was
really founded. He assumes an eutirely dif-
ferent terminus a quo for the sixty-nine weeks,
namely B.C. 444, the alleged first year of Cyrus,
whom he believes to have Uved in the fifth in-
stead of the sixth century before Christ (! !).
The sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, intervened
tween that year and Christ's death on the cross
in March, A.D. 38; (6) by Kliefotb, who goes
back to the mystictd theory of reckoning, and
accordingly extends the seven weeks from the
edict of Cyrus in B.C. 537 to the advent of
Christ, regardless of the fact that that period
does not consist of seven weeks of years, nor o£
seven centuries, nor of any cycle whatever,
whose aggregate of years is divisible by seven
— the sixty-two sevens from Christ to the time
of the great apostacy, or of the antichrist at the
end of earthly history (during which period of
indefinite duration the church is to be " built"
and "restored," or brought back to God), and
finally, the last week from the great apostacy to
the appearing of Christ, the last judgment, and
the consummation of the world.

D. Hofmann, Delitzsch, Fuller, Ebrard, and
Kranichfeld [also substantially Keil] adopt the
typically Mesnianic interpretation. The former
three also favor the transposing theory followed
by Wieseler (1846), inasmuch as they assign to
the seven weeks of years a placa after the 63 ■¥■
1 weeks. They reckon the latter from B. C. OOG
or the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the time of
the Maccabees (and more particularly, the sixty-
two weeks from 606-172. and the one week
from 173-165), regarding the events of the a;ra
of the Antiochian persecution and the Maccabae-
an revolt as types and preflgurations of the his-
tory of the founding of Christianity ; and they
describe the seven weeks of years as a period of
unmeasured length, whose beginning is coinci-
dent with the " going forth of the word to build
Jerusalem," i.e., with the first preaching of the
Gospel in the time of Christ and the apostles,
while their end is connected with the judgment
of the world and the advent of Christ ! There
is therefore, on this theory, a "' breaking of the
thread," or a hiatus, between the sixty thre«



212



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



and the seven weeks amounting to about 160-
190 years, and, in addition, an extension of the
last seven weeks into periods of mysterious
length ; in other words, the aid of inttrcidntiuii,
and of mysitkal enumtratlon is superadded to
that of transpositum [of. supra, No. 4, (2), (3j,
and (t!)]. These are employed at least by Hof-
mann and Delitzsch, who do not even shrink
from the venturous experiment of amplifying
the seventy weeks into quadratic Sabbatic
periods,* whUe Fuller, more soljer and consi-
derate, but assuredly not less arbitrary, inter-
prets the six weeks as being wholly future, and
as belonging to the distant end of the world.
He endeavors to render this inordinate hiatus
conceivable by the assumption that Daniel saw
the post-Macedonian antichrist, Antiochus Epi-
phanes, and the post- Roman antichrist of the
last times perspectively as one. — Ebrard avoids
every method of transposition, but does not
_ escape violently altering the text (in a review of
Fiiller's Daniel, in the Guterslohe Allgem. liteiiir.
Auzeiger, Oct., 1808, p. 207, and earlier, in his
Offenbarung Johaniiis, p. 07 et seq.), in his en-
deavor to demonstrate the typically Messianic
tense of the passage. Supported by the ampli-
fying version of the Sept. (see supra. No. 1), he
reads D''":'£ in v. 25 a (soil. S'??"-?), instead
of niSjia, or he asserts that a"'??".; was omitted
after C^ynii; through the inadvertence of a
copyist. He farther holds that v. 24 states, in
general terras and round numbers, that seventy
weeks of years were to elapse from the begin-
ning of the captivit}' to Christ, and, by the method
described above, obtains the more exact state-
ment in V. 25, that 7-h70 = 77 weeks of years
should intervene between the edict of Cyrus
(538; and Christ, and sixty-two weeks between
the building of the city " with street and wall "
by Nehemiah (B. C. 440) and Christ (six years
earlier than the Christian jera). The time from
Christ's birth to his death or the thirty-five
years of his life on earth, in which he particu-
larly includes the three and a half years of his
official activity, are conceived by him as the
former half of the last week, the whole of
which is said to be a '' larger mystical" week;
and its latter half ' ' reaches to the mystical
three and a half years of the Apocalypse, which
e.'ctend to the return of Christ." — Kranichfeld
does less violence to the text than any of those
referred to. Avoiding transposition, parallel-
isms, and emendations, he reckons the first seven
weeks of years from the prophecy of Jeremiah,
chap. xxix. , and from the destruction of Jerusa-
lem in B.C. 588 (cf. supra, on v. 25), the sixty-
two weeks from the end of the former seven or
the time of Daniel's vision in B.C. 539, and re-
gards the ~"j: n''r'^i â– y- 25, who stands at the
beginning of the sixty-two weeks, as represent-



• Cf . Delitzsch, p. 284, " If the seventy weeks are not re-
garded ft6 t^imple, but rather as quadrated Sabbatic periods,
it follows that 70 X 4t* or 34^i0 .years are to intervene be-
tween the fourth year of Jehoiakim and Christ, whose pani-
Eia is considered as one such period. Consequently, if .3,595
years be added to that aKffregate, as havincr passed from the
creation to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the suirKestive
amount will result in about TO^'O years (diminished by only
twenty-five years) as the duration of the world. For u
triticism of this view cf. Klicfoth, p. 337 et seq.



ing Cyrus, whUe the n"C."73, v. 26, who appcan
at their close, is supposed to denote Christ. This
theory consequently postulates a gap of more
than a century between the Maccabsean period,
which bounds the sixty-two weeks (and to whose
suiferings the prophetic descriptions of v. 26 b
and 27 refer), and the time of Christ, the " an-
ointed one who was to be cut oif," v. 26 a,
which interval was unnoticed by the prophet, in
harmony with the law of perspective vision.*

The assumption of this interval between the
close of the sixty-two weeks and the opening of
the New-Test, aira of salvation does not con-
stitute the feature which forms our only objec-
tion to Kranichfeld's theory ; for, without some
such interval the prophecy would lose its genu-
inely prophetic character, and instead of being
an idea] description, possessing the future, it
would present a calculation of arithmetical ex-



* [Keil thus classifies the various interpretations: *'l.
Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpre-
ters find prophesied here the appearance of Chri.st in the
flesh. His deatii, and the destruction of Jei-usalem by the
Romans. This view is in our time fully and at length de-
fended by Hiivemick ( Comvi.), Hengstenberg ( Chrislol., III.
1, p. 19 sq., 2d ed.), and Auberlen {Der Proph. Dame!, etc.,
p. lO^j sq., Sd ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic
theoloiriau Laur. Reinke {Die ifefifian. We^fsag. bti rte» gr.
u. kl. 't'roph. des A. T., IV. I, p. 2U(i s(].), am' by Dr. Pusi'y,
of England. 2. The majority of modem (continental) in-
terpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, This view presents it-self in
the Alexandrian translation of the prophecy, more distinctly
in Jidius Htlarianus (about A.D. 4UU) ( Chronoivgia s. UbeUus
tic mundi dutalione. in Jlipne's Biltliolh. cler. vnh\, t. 13,
p. 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first
broufrht into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters
Eichhom, Bertboldt, v. Lent'erke, Maurer, Ewald. Hitzig,
[Rosenmiiller]. and the mediating theologians Bleek. Wies-
eler {/Me 70 M'ochen u. die (j3 Jahricoclien des Proph.
Daniel, Giitt.. 1839. with which compare the retractaticn
in the GiJUtnger. Gel. Anzeiger, 1840, p. 113 sq.), who
arc followed by Liicke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld [Stuart],
and othei-s. This verse has been defended byHofmann {Die
70 Ji'hre rfeJ* Jer. u. die 70 Jahrwochen den Daniel,
Niirnb.. 18;J6, and Wtitisag. u. ErfiUltntg, as also in
the Hi-kriftbeic). Delitzsch (art. Daniel in Herzog's Real-
enct/kl. vol. III.), and ZilndeHinthe Ki Uischen UnlerSH.), hut
with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch
have united an eschatological reference to the primary his-
torical reference of vers. 25-87 to Antiochus Epiphanes, in
consequence of which the prophecy will be perfectly accom-
plished only in the appearance of antichrist and the final
comiiletion of the kingdom of God at the end of the days.
3. Finally, some of the church fathers and several modem
theologians have interpreted the prophecy eschatologically,
as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of
God at the end of the exile on to the perfecting of the king-
dom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days.
Of this view we have the first germs in Hippolj-tus and Apol-
linaris of Laodicea, who. having regard to the prophecy
of .\ntichrist, ch. vii. 25, refer the statement of ver. 27 "f
this chap, regarding the last week to the cud of the world,
and the first half of this week they regard as the time of the
return of Elias, the second halt as the time of antichrist.
This view is for the first time definitely stated in the Berie-
hura Bible. But Kliefotb, in his Comm. on Daniel, was
the fii-sl who sought to investigate and establish this opinion
e.xegetically, and Leyser (in Herzog's Beulenc., XVIII.. p.
.383) has thus briefly stated it : ' The seventy CI" p:L". i.e., the

Koxpoi of Daniel (ch. ix. 24 sq.), meastired by sevens, withia
which the whole of God's plan of salvation in the world will
be completed, are a symbolical period with reference to the
seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, and with the
accessory notion of oecumenicity. The seventy is again
divided into three periods : into seven (till (Christ), sixty-two
(till the aiJostasy of antichrist), and one, 2?^lw, the last

world, i:riii, divided into 2 x 3>i times, the rise and fall of an-
tichrist.' '' With the last view Keil's own interpretation es-
sentially agrees. The great objection to it is that it mixes
the literal with the mystical import of the prophecy, and
fails to yield any exact fulfilment of the definite uumberi
of the text!.



CHAP. IX 1-27.



213



BctnesB (cf. tue following section. No. 1). Our
difficulty consists in the circumstance that the
â– â–  anointed one who should be cut off," t. 26 n,
is held to be Jesus Christ, the Messiah, who was
exalted through humiliation and sufferings to
glory, while everything subsequently mentioned
in the immediate context (the "'prince" who
should "destroy the city and the sanctuary,"
the 'â–  covenant with many " confirmed by him,
the interruption of the sacrifice and oblation,
the introduction of the abomination of desola-
tion, and the judicial punishment of the de-
Etroyer) had its complete historical fulfilment
in the events of the period of persecution and
oppression under Antiochus, and serves merely