Historical-Critical Interpretation of Daniel 9

Purpose

The Book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the sixth century BC. However, it explicitly names the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires, which came into existence later. Liberal scholars, who dominate the academic world, do not accept that accurate predictions of the future are possible. In the Historical-Critical Interpretation of Daniel 9, which is the current academic consensus, Daniel, including the prophecy in Daniel 9, was written after the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires already existed. In other words, the predictions in Daniel are actually history written in the form of prophecy.

Specifically, Liberals hold that Daniel was written during the reign of the Greek king Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC, who desecrated the Jewish temple and killed many Jews. Liberals believe that Daniel 9, and all other so-called prophecies in Daniel, describe that crisis.

Since this is the academic consensus, this view is reflected in encyclopedias. For example, the Wikipedia page on Daniel 9 reads:

“The consensus among scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish diaspora in the Persian/Hellenistic periods, to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE.”

The purpose of this article is to explain and object to specific aspects of the Liberal Interpretation.

General Objections

Firstly, the average Christian is not even aware of that view. As such, liberalism, by definition, is a minority view within Christianity. Pastors do not teach that Daniel was written in the second century BC. Most Christians believe that Daniel is true prophecy, written in the 6th century BC. For them, Daniel is the cornerstone of their eschatology.

Secondly, it was not the traditional interpretation. Liberal criticism developed in the 19th/20th century. The reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, believed that Daniel is true prophecy.

Beginning of the 490 Years

Since liberals regard the prophecies in Daniel as history written in the form of prophecy, they must fit the 490 years of Daniel 9 before the time of King Antiochus. However, Jerusalem was destroyed only about 420 years before Antiochus. There is even less time between the later decrees to rebuild Jerusalem and Antiochus.

The standard Liberal interpretation is that the seventy weeks (490 years) began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. However:

Firstly, in the prophecy, the 490 years will begin with a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Dan 9:25). The destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC was not a decree. The decrees to restore Jerusalem were much later: Cyrus (538 BC), Darius (520), and Artaxerxes (458 and 445).

Secondly, the destruction of Jerusalem does not fit the timeline. From 586 BC to the rededication of the temple in 164 BC was only 422 years, not the 490 years required by the prophecy.

Thirdly, if the timeline began with the destruction of Jerusalem, then the 70 years of exile ran concurrently with the 490 years, which is not logical. The Daniel 9 prophecy was received at the end of the 70 years. The 70 years were past history, while the 490 years were promised for the future.

The first 7 Weeks

In the Liberal schema, the first 7 weeks (49 years) came to an end with Cyrus’ decree in 538 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Judah and to rebuild the temple. That decree was 48 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, which is only one year short of the required 49 (7 x 7) years. However:

The 490 years are supposed to BEGIN with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. In the Liberal interpretation, Cyrus’s decree was at the end of the first 49 of the 490 years.

The next 62 Weeks

In the Liberal View, the 62 weeks extend from Cyrus’ decree (539/8 BC) to Onias III (171/0 BC). However, that period was only 367 years; 67 years short of the predicted 434 years (62 x 7). If, as critics believe, Daniel 9:24-27 is history written after the events in the form of prophecy, then one could rightly expect that history would fit the prophecy timeline.

Messiah cut off

In the Liberal view, the messiah, who was “cut off” (murdered) at the end of the 62 weeks, was Onias III. He was killed in 171/0 BC. However:

Firstly, Onias was no messiah. The Bible uses the term “messiah” only for people who rescue Israel from danger. Onias did not rescue Israel from anything.

Secondly, in the liberal interpretation, the messiah (Onias) DISAPPEARS (is cut off) at the end of the 62 weeks. But, in the prophecy, the messiah APPEARS at the end of the 62 weeks (Dan 9:25), and will be killed some undefined time “AFTER the sixty-two weeks” (Dan 9:26).

The Antichrist

In the Liberal View, it was the Greek king Antiochus who destroyed the city and the sanctuary, who made a firm covenant for one week, but who put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering in the middle of the week (Dan 9:26-27).

King Antiochus Epiphanes indeed stopped the Jewish sacrifices. According to the book of 1 Maccabean, the “desolating sacrilege”—a heathen altar—was erected on the Jewish altar of burnt sacrifice on December 4, 167 BC (15 Kislev, 145; 1 Macc 1:54). That was more or less in the middle of the seven years after Onias was murdered. Liberals assume this heathen altar was the abomination of desolation mentioned elsewhere in Daniel. However:

Firstly, Antiochus never destroyed the sanctuary, as the prophecy predicts (v25). He only defiled it (1 Macc 1:30-31, 39). He turned it into a temple of his own god. Neither did Antiochus destroy Jerusalem, as the prophecy also predicts. He destroyed only part of the city of Jerusalem and massacred many inhabitants.

Secondly, while Liberals limit the crisis in Daniel to the time of King Antiochus, in the 2nd century BC, Jesus put the abomination of desolation of Daniel’s prophecies in His future. He said:

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand) …” (Matt 24:15)

For many Christians, this is sufficient evidence against the Liberal interpretation.

Thirdly, in the prophecy, the person who stops the sacrifices will conclude an agreement with many for one week (seven years). King Antiochus did not conclude or confirm an agreement with anybody for seven years. His general support for Hellenizing Jews was not limited to seven years. For example, he replaced Onias with a pro-Greek high priest several years before Onias was killed.

End of the 490 Years

In the liberal schema, the 490 years ended after the successful Maccabean revolt. The temple and the altar of sacrifice were rededicated on December 14, 164 BC (25 Kislev, 148; 1 Macc 4:52), exactly 3 years after the first heathen sacrifice in the temple. In the liberal view, this was the “anointing of a most holy place,” listed as one of the goals for the 70 weeks (Dan 9:24). However:

Firstly, as already stated, this means that the total period, from 586 to 164 BC, was 422 years, not the 490 years mentioned by the prophecy.

Secondly, Daniel 9 ends with the multiplication of chaos. There is no evidence in that chapter that the temple will be rededicated or that the sacrifices will be resumed.

Thirdly, the Liberal view contradicts itself. On the one hand, it says that the last week ends with the rededication. On the other hand, it says that the Book of Daniel was written before the successful Maccabean revolt, and the writer of Daniel did not anticipate success.

Purpose of the 490 Years

The Liberal interpretation also does not fit the purpose of the 490 years, as stated in Daniel 9:24. That verse gives six goals to be achieved during the 490 years, including to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Why would a faithful Jew, compiling the book of Daniel in the second century, during the period of temple desecration under King Antiochus IV, give these 6 goals for the events predicted in the prophecy? It would require much creativity to find an application for such goals to the time of Antiochus, particularly on the liberal assumption that Daniel was written before the success of the Maccabean revolt.

Jesus Christ has no role.

The essence of the prophecy in Daniel 9 is that, within 500 years from the restoration of Jerusalem, and therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Messiah would appear, but be killed. In the context of goals such as “to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness” and in the context of the New Testament, this must be a prophecy about Jesus Christ. But, in the liberal interpretation, Jesus finds no place in this prophecy.

Daniel is historically accurate.

Liberals, aware of the concerns raised above, claim that the second-century writer of Daniel did not know his history too well. However, it should be noted that the book of Daniel contains amazingly accurate historical facts that were poorly known during the later pre-Christian centuries. Show More

An attack on the Bible

The liberal interpretation is based on the assumption that Daniel is a fake; that it describes history, leading up to the time of Antiochus IV, written by an unknown writer in the form of prophecy, with some added uninspired and incorrect speculations of future events. If this were true, we should question the credibility of the entire Bible. In particular, it means that the Book of Revelation, which relies heavily on Daniel, is fiction. The liberal interpretation is an attack on the Christian faith.

An Alternative Liberal View

A slight variation from the standard liberal schema is proposed in an article by Hartman and Di Lella in the influential Anchor Bible Commentary. They do not start the 490 years with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, but with Jeremiah’s announcement as recorded in 29:10, which they date to 594 BC. Otherwise, they continue the standard liberal schema.

The benefit of this proposal is that the 490 years do not start with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with a “word”, as required by Daniel 9. However:

Jeremiah 29:10 was also not a “word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25 KJV). Jeremiah 29:10 only spoke of bringing back exiles to Judah.

From 594 BC to 538 BC is 56 years, not 49 years. Hartman and Di Lella suggest that 56 years is “sufficiently close to the quasi-artificial figure of ‘seven weeks’ of years. Not everybody would accept the 7 weeks as “quasi-artificial.”

The second section of the 490 years remains too short. Consequently, the full period from 594 BC to 164 BC is only 430 years, 50 years short of the required 490 years.

This proposal does not solve any of the other many problems.