Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

Issues Report: The Athnach in Daniel 9:25

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Course GSEM 627-001 Christian Vogel, M.A.

by Kasper Haughton Jr. http://about.me/kasperjr 7/27/11

Text in Question Daniel 9:25 (NKJV) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks [athnach] and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. Question How should the athnach in Daniel 9:25 be understood? Why is this important? Thesis The athnach in Daniel 9:25 should be understood as a non-disjunctive accent of emphasis pointing out the structural parallelism of the text. Definition of Problem As Bible scholars have translated Hebrew writings, certain accent point markings have helped signify how to properly punctuate the text so as to give a proper reading in modern language. Often times these textual pointings themselves need translating so as to stay faithful to the authors original intent. One such marking is the Hebrew athnach. This symbol, in the shape of an upside-down V comes in the middle of a Hebrew verse dividing it into two portions. Thus, the athnach served a role within the three original classes of Hebrew pausal accents.1 Since Hebrew was first a spoken language, these accentual rules helped form the rhythmic foundation for the consistent music-like chanting of the text done traditionally in Jewish culture.2 The reason why the meanings of Hebrew accents are important is because understanding the emphasis originally placed while speaking helps us better solve problems of translation today. Israel Yeivin, a Hebrew scholar in Masoretic studies, quotes the twelfth-century grammarian Ibn Ezras comments on Hebrew translation saying: You should not listen to, or agree with, any interpretation which is not consistent with the accentuation.3 It is with this background that we approach the text of Daniel 9:25. For the purpose of my research, I presuppositionally presume this passage to be a prophecy about what will happen after the command to rebuild Jerusalem. I also assume acceptance of the principle which converts prophetic days into literal years when applying the text. The problem with Daniel 9:25 is that the athnach seems to come at a rather odd place under the word shivah (in English, the phrase seven weeks), bringing a pause between the mention of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. Two opposing viewpoints have developed over the significance of this athnach. On one hand the athnach could be read as a full disjunctive, or complete break in thought. Consequently, the Messiah
1

Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. and ed. E. J. Revell (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980): 169. 2 Ibid., 158. 3 Ibid., 218.

mentioned comes after seven weeks of prophetic time. The opposite viewpoint does not see the athnach causing a complete disjunctive break in thought. Thus, the seven weeks are added to the sixty-two weeks. Messiah comes after sixty-nine weeks.4 With this in mind, the question for this paper could read: Should Daniel 9:25s time prophecy be about two separate periods of time or one chronological succession of events? The Case for Full-Disjunction Historical-critics are the first to ascribe to the understanding that the athnach in Daniel 9:25 dictates a complete disjunction between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks.5 Montgomery and Lacocque for example, in their commentaries on Daniel, almost matter-of-factly assume the preterist understanding of 9:25 in saying that there are three periods of time represented in the seventy-week prophecy of chapter 9:24-27.6 This is based on an understanding that the athnach acts as a full stop disjuction.7 Their idea of a messiah is not tied to the figure of Jesus, but rather to an event within the (earthly) Priestly ministry. So, the first period of seven weeks concludes with the coming of a messiah. Then, the period of 62 weeks concludes with a messiahcut off, all seemingly within the realm of the Temple ministry.8 This interpretation is founded on Historical-critics seeing the athnach emphatically as automatically indicating a full disjunctive throughout scripture.9 In effect, this view eliminates any link to Jesus as Messiah within the text. Critique of the Case for Disjunction In reviewing the opinions of the Historical-Critics on the athnach in this text, I cant help but see a major flaw (as pointed out in Owusu-Antwis thesis on The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27). The basic Historical-Critic presupposition that the athnach always serves in a disjunctive role breaks down as one turns the page in their Biblical commentaries to find the authors own interpretations contradicting themselves.10 In Montgomerys commentary on Daniel, the author treats the athnach in verse 24 much differently than in verse 25. Here, the author breaks his own presupposition that the athnach must automatically be disjunctive where it stands. He
4

Brempong Owusu-Antwi, The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1995): 186. 5 This view is also held by a few Symbolic/Nunc-Millenialists such as Keil. In his commentary on the book of Daniel, he basically says that the LXX version of the Hebrew text is in complete error by tying together the words before and after the athnach. In addition he implies that the Masorites were at times incorrect in their use of the athnach as a non-disjuctive, thus rendering arguments for the non-disjunctive use of the accent null. Reference: C. F. Keil, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. M. G. Easton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872): 356. 6 James A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer and C. A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950): 378; Andr Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. David Pellauer (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979): 194. Also, see: S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1922): 137. 7 Owusu-Antwi, 186. 8 Lacocque, 194. 9 Owusu-Antwi, 186. Keil goes a step further in claiming that the Masorites pointing of the text is faulty whenever the athnach appears to be a non-disjuctive. It seems here that the authors presuppositions primarily influence their assumptions rather than the evidence of the text. Reference: Keil, p 356. 10 Ibid., 188.

moves it, and downgrades it from a full stop in thought to a colon pause.11 If one were to follow the principle of interpretation used by Montgomery in 9:25, Daniel 9:24 should read in its crudest form: Seventy weeks are decreed upon your people and your holy city to finish transgression and to put an end to sin and to atone for wickedness and to bring in everlasting righteousness. [athnach] And to seal up vision and prophet and to anoint a holy of holies.12 Instead, Montgomery correctly translates verse 24 as: Seventy weeks are decreed : against thy people and thy holy city, For finishing transgression and completing sin and absolving iniquity : And bringing in everlasting rightness and sealing vision and prophet And anointing the Most Holy.13 Montgomery completely disregards his universally disjuctive nature of the athnach under olamim (in English, under the phrase: everlasting rightness) in favor of a translation that makes grammatical sense.14 He says in defense: the clause [and sealing vision and prophet] is to be connected with what precedes.15 Driver also agrees with this non-disjunctive use of the athnach in verse 24, finding that the phrase to seal up is in agreement with the preceding phrase. Together, this clause belongs with the verb finishing so as to maintain the parallelism of the verse. In other words, to preserve the natural contrast of the passages parallels, these commentators rightly downgraded the full disjunctive nature of the athnach. It seems to me that this Historical-Critical reading of the athnach in verse 24 discredits the opinion that the athnach automatically performs a function of syntactically ending a thought. Owusu-Antwi agrees, adding: there is the possibility that the athnach in the next verse [9:25] could be treated as being in the same category.16 The Case for Non-Disjunction The Historical-Critical method of treating the athnach in 9:25 as universally disjunctive doesnt seem to be founded on a complete understanding of the use of the accent within the Bible. I have found the case for non-disjunction more Biblically
11

In moving the emphatic pause of the athnach, the author is most likely in line with the commentary of Goldingay when he suggests dividing the verse between the three negatives and two positives. Reference: John E. Goldingay, Daniel, ed. D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker, Vol. 30 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989): 229. 12 Ibid., 187. 13 Montgomery, 373. 14 Driver, 135-136. 15 Montgomery, 377. 16 Owusu-Antwi, 188.

representative and Christocentric in nature. Notable in the area of laying out the position of non-disjunction is the work of Owusu-Antwi on the text.17 The Hebrew accent of the athnach holds a much wider function of syntactical purpose throughout the Old Testament.18 To say that the athnach has wider use is not a full negation of its disjunctive use, however. There are many times in the Bible where this accent does have full disjunctive force.19 There are, as well, times when the athnach carries with it other functions portraying lesser emphasis on pausal effects down to no disjunctive significance[].20 Since our text in question deals with numbers, it is helpful to look at examples of the use of the athnach in verses numerical in nature. There are three main categories of use. First, comes the times when the athnach is used like a colon in order to introduce a related sequence. We find this in 1 Chronicles 7:9 (NKJV): And they were recorded by genealogy according to their generations, heads of their fathers houses, [athnach] twenty thousand two hundred mighty men of valor. After this usage, comes a function of athnach much like we use commas today. Looking at Exodus 38:29 (NKJV) helps us get a verbal idea of this: The offering of bronze was seventy talents [athnach] and two thousand four hundred shekels. Lastly, we find an application of the athnach where there is no indication of grammatical pause or disjunction. This is evident in Numbers 1:46 (NKJV), when an athnach is placed between the hundreds and thousands digits of a number just like we would when mentioning one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000): all who were numbered were six hundred and three thousand [athnach] five hundred and fifty. These instances indicate that there is sufficient Biblical evidence to support a nondisjunctive reading of the athnach when certain emphases are implied by the structure of the text.21 Reading the Athnach in Daniel 9:25
17 18

Owusu-Antwi, 190-192. For a more detailed exposition on the general uses of the athnach throughout the Hebrew Bible, see the section Specific Functions of Athnach in the Old Testament in Owusu-Antwi, 188-190. 19 Example: Genesis 1:5 (NLT). God called the light day and the darkness night. [athnach] And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day. 20 Owusu-Antwi, 190. 21 Ibid., 190-192.

It is my belief that the athnach in Daniel 9:25, having been stripped of its restrictive full disjunctive characteristics, is an emphatic device to make plain the parallelism of the text just as in the preceding verse. Here are some observations on the structure of the text that can help understand where the parallels may occur. The phrases seven weeks and sixty-two weeks are joined by the conjunction, and. This suggests that the two phrases belong together somehow even through the presence of the athnach. The accent, therefore could take a lesser pausal role with equal emphatic strength.22 In addition, we find another clue in the text that helps to understand the function of the athnach. Just as the commentators found parallelisms in verse 24 they had to grammatically account for, so we can find parallels within verse 25. Owusu-Antwi points out that there seems to be a conjunction of connection between Jerusalem and the Messiah just as there is a conjunction of connection between the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The text states: Jerusalem until the Messiah, the Prince. It seems that the temporal use of the word until has the effect of [a] conjunction between Jerusalem and Messiah.23 Just like high school college-prep comparison questions, we find a parallel here: Jerusalem is to Messiah as seven weeks is to sixty-two weeks.24 The structure of the text seems to suggest that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would take 7 weeks (49 years), and that Messiah would come sixty-two weeks (434 years) afterwards.25 The athnach in this passage functions to force the reader to pause and catch the emphasis on the similarity between the parallel phrases. Without such emphasis, a person might breeze by with a cursory non-structural reading of the text and wonder how a Messiah could appear at the end of the seven weeks and be killed 434 years later.26 Conclusion The correct reading of an emphatic, non-disjunctive athnach in Daniel 9:25 is important to the churchs understanding today because through it we find one of the strongest chronicles of time pointing to the coming of Jesus our Messiah.27 Miss the emphasis on the parallelism in the text and one very well may pass right by Jesus: in control of history yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
22 23

Owusu-Antwi, 194. Ibid. 24 Visually: A: Jerusalem B: until the Messiah, the Prince A1: seven weeks B1: and sixty-two weeks 25 Owusu-Antwi, 194. The Seventh-day Adventist Commentary notes that Jesus did in fact come and was baptized 483 years after the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, just as the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 stated. Reference: F. D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. F. D. Nichol, Vol. 4, 7 vols. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1976). 26 As does Doukhan, although not in a serious sense, in his paper on the 70 week prophecy. Jacques B. Doukhan, "The seventy weeks of Daniel 9 an exegetical study," Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (Spring 1979): 17. 27 It was also important to the church of yesteryear. Says Owusu-Antwi: none of the ancient versionsLXX, Theodotion, Syriac, or Vulgateputs a full disjunctive between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks of Dan 9:25. This is also to include the Qumran texts. Reference: Owusu-Antwi, 195-196.

Bibliography Doukhan, Jacques B. "The seventy weeks of Daniel 9 an exegetical study." Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (Spring 1979): 17. Driver, S. R. The Book of Daniel. London: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Edited by D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker. Vol. 30. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989. Keil, C. F. The Book of the Prophet Daniel. Translated by M. G. Easton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. Lacocque, Andr. The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979. Montgomery, James A. The Book of Daniel. Edited by S. R. Driver, A. Plummer and C. A. Briggs. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Nichol, F. D., ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Vol. 4. 7 vols. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1976. Owusu-Antwi, Brempong. The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27. Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1995. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Edited by E. J. Revell. Translated by E. J. Revell. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980.