In “A Decree to Rebuild” I said this…
…in response to Ed Hurst’s blog post on Daniel 9. Well, I was subsequently reading Ed Hurst’s commentary on Daniel and came across this comment:
The context of this chapter, the whole focus, is Daniel confessing the sins of his nation, Israel. We note immediately that he dates this event during the first year of the ruler he calls “Darius,” appointed to manage Medo-Persian affairs in the district of Babylon, the flat plain at the southern end of Mesopotamia. We generally place that around 538 BC. This was nearly 70 years after the first exile under Babylon, affecting the royal family of Judah, including Daniel himself. Daniel had been reading Jeremiah’s prophecy (25:11-12), which mentioned the approximate span of 70 years for the Exile. Daniel’s confession on behalf of his nation is poetry beyond compare. In it, he clearly emphasizes that God is just, and while Israel sins recklessly even yet, he asks God to keep His promise.
Some traditional explanations are that the beginning of the exile was in 587BC or 586BC, when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. This is a captivity period of 49 (or 48) years. They note that the time between when the temple was destroyed and 516BC, when the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem was rededicated is 71 (or 70) years. The problem with the later approaches is that Daniel saw the 70 years of exile coming to a close. If Daniel 9 was written in ~538BC, as Hurst claims, then none of the traditional explanations are acceptable and must all be rejected. So let’s look elsewhere.
The Babylonian exile ended in 538BC when Cyrus the Great conquered the Babylonians. Many scholars and historians date the beginning of the Babylonian exile to 597BC, when Johoiachim was deposed. This is a captivity period of 59 years.
This is “approximately” 70 years, I suppose, if you have no better explanation. Some who fail to find Jeremiah’s 70 years here pull out their calculators and set the date backwards from 538BC to 608BC by subtracting 70 years. This is a period of 70 years, of course, but this isn’t really 70 years of captivity by any normal explanation: it extends so far back in history that it predates Nebuchadnezzar II and the Babylonian incursion entirely. Finding no exact match, some conclude that the captivity period of 59 years is “close enough” to 70 to count. And that’s the option that Hurst has chosen. It’s okay, but it’s not great.
Now let’s reconsider what would happen if we didn’t assume that 59 years was “close enough” to 70 years. Look at the history of events. As expected, nothing of world shaking significance happened in 608BC, exactly 70 years before Daniel in 538BC. But something very interesting happened only a few years later in 605BC when Nebuchadnezzar II—who would destroy the Jerusalem and temple in 587BC or 586BC and reign until 562BC—came to power. Counting from 605BC forward seventy years takes us to 535BC. If we use the date that Hurst provided, ~538BC, then Daniel really was writing very close to—within 3 years of—the expected end of the seventy year exile.
Daniel had lived through that entire period and he was getting quite old. He saw the beginning of the punishment and he could count down the years from 70. This would explains why he was consulting Jeremiah: he saw the exile ended (or ending soon) and fully expected the literal 70 years to be over (or nearly over), not ~11 years—more than a decade—away. Seeing the end of the Babylonian exile as the end of the 70 years of punishment—that began with the punisher Nebuchadnezzar II—Daniel was hoping to see the end of the punishment before he died, thus praying to God that this was the end.
Let’s pause here to note that we don’t have to object to Hurst who says (emphasis added)…
…and…
We just think our explanation of “67 to 70 years” is much closer than ~59 years to the “nearly 70 years.” We agree that it doesn’t have to be exact, but making it more accurate makes the explanation more elegant.
There are three key reasons why this is preferred.
First, starting the period of 70 years with the rise of the king who would be personally responsible for ushering in the punishment is in keeping with the moral import and reality of the situation. To wit (emphasis added):
A major element that completely befuddles most Americans is the frequent Hebrew casual neglect of chronological order. Proper formal Hebrew narrative is often quite nonconsecutive in relating events. The moral import is given far greater weight.
One of the first things you learn is that, among Hebrew intelligentsia familiar with Greece and Hellenism, they regarded themselves as anti-Hellenists by predisposition. A footnote explains that, in their rejection of Hellenism, the Hebrews didn’t feel the need to worry about the form of things, nor to harmonize with the natural world, but to remain focused on the moral reality of everything. Thus, they produced no visual art simply because the Second Commandment to avoid idolatrous images.
From the standpoint of the moral reality of the punishment, it doesn’t actually matter when Jerusalem was sacked, it matters who did the punishment and why. From a Hebrew mindset, the exile began with the rise of the one who was God’s chosen instrument of punishment. This was the moment, as it were, when the punishment began and could not be undone. The sacking of Jerusalem and the 70 years of punishment were, at that point, foregone conclusions.
This is why Daniel expected the exile to shortly end, because it was nearly 70 years since—in Daniel’s mind—the “real” exile began.
Second, anchoring to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II is in keeping with the context of the whole book of Daniel, where this same anchor in Daniel 9 is used of the golden head of the statue in Daniel 2. There is no reason this must be the case, but it is easily the best fit of all the possible options listed above.
Third, it provides an anchor point (the only one!) for the Sixty-Two weeks:
From 605 B.C., we progress forward Sixty-two Weeks—434 years—to 171 B.C..
When I looked at the various explanations for the Sixty-Two weeks in the previous post, none of them were satisfactory because they force one to choose a specific “decree” from the various options, even if that decree isn’t an elegant fit. Moreover, the eisegetical need to harmonize the prophesy to the timeline took priority over sound exegetical reasons to choose one decree over another.
Recall the list of decrees that we might appeal to in order to understand Daniel 9:
- Cyrus’ (Ezra 1:1-4)
- Darius’ (Ezra 5:3-7)
- Artaxerxes’ to Ezra (Ezra 7:11-16) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:1-8)
- Jeremiah’s decree of God (Jeremiah 30-33)
The first two decrees only discuss the Temple and not Jerusalem, the city. Choosing one of these is not a good fit. That leaves only the latter two, both of which pertain to Jerusalem. When one considers exegetically that Daniel had just been reading about the seventy years in Jeremiah, we find the explanation that is elegant, simple, and soundly contextual. Moreover, this explanation accounts for the 70-years of exile as an actual 70-years, while also taking into account the Hebrew mindset. The other explanations simply fail to do this.
i guess the ED/Radix Fidem ANE stuff will like the following:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/260051/pope-francis-releases-first-sacred-heart-encyclical-in-nearly-70-years-connects-devotion-to-ai-digital-age
Pope Francis released a new encyclical Dilexit Nos (“He Loved Us”) on Thursday, calling for a renewed understanding of devotion to the Sacred Heart in the modern era and its many pressing challenges.
In the document, the pope argues that the spirituality of the Sacred Heart offers a vital response to what he calls a “liquid society” dominated by technology and consumerism.
Pope Francis writes: “Living as we do in an age of superficiality, rushing frenetically from one thing to another without really knowing why, and ending up as insatiable consumers and slaves to the mechanisms of a market unconcerned about the deeper meaning of our lives, all of us need to rediscover the importance of the heart.”
Subtitled “Letter on the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ,” the document is the first papal encyclical dedicated entirely to the Sacred Heart since Pope Pius XII’s Haurietis Aquas in 1956.
Throughout the document, Francis weaves together traditional elements of Sacred Heart devotion with contemporary concerns, presenting Christ’s heart as the principle unifying reality in a fragmented world.
The document’s release fulfills an announcement made by the pope in June, when he noted that meditating on the Lord’s love can “illuminate the path of ecclesial renewal and say something meaningful to a world that seems to have lost its heart.”
Trending
1
Sacred Heart shows path forward in AI era, Pope Francis says in new encyclical ‘Dilexit Nos’
2
Seminary rector responds to ‘Conclave’ movie: why only men can be priests
3
10 inspiring quotes from Pope Francis in his encyclical ‘Dilexit Nos’
4
Doctor concealed tax-funded puberty blocker study after it did not show mental health benefits
5
Jesuit priest gifts Pope Francis a special wheelchair from Cambodia
At a press conference presenting the document on Thursday, Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte said the encyclical expresses “in a profound way the heart and the inspiring motive of the whole ministry and magisterium of Pope Francis.”
Archbishop Bruno Forte speaks to journalists at the presentation of the encyclical Dilexit Nos, Oct. 24, 2024. Credit: Julia Cassell/EWTN News
Archbishop Bruno Forte speaks to journalists at the presentation of the encyclical Dilexit Nos, Oct. 24, 2024. Credit: Julia Cassell/EWTN News
The theologian added that in his opinion, the text is “the key to understanding this pope’s magisterium.”
Forte, who is a member of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, presented the encyclical together with Sister Antonella Fraccaro, superior general of the Disciples of the Gospel (Discepole del Vangelo).
From Scripture to AI: inside the pope’s vision
The approximately 30,000-word encyclical draws extensively from Scripture and tradition, featuring insights from St. Thérèse of Lisieux, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Charles de Foucauld.
Released as the Synod on Synodality is concluding its monthlong deliberations in Rome, the document emphasizes both personal spirituality and communal missionary commitment.
Francis develops his vision across five chapters, beginning with a philosophical and theological exploration of “the importance of the heart” before moving through reflections on Christ’s actions and words of love, the theological meaning of Sacred Heart devotion, its spiritual dynamics and social implications.
Algorithms in the digital world
“The algorithms operating in the digital world show that our thoughts and will are much more ‘uniform’ than we had previously thought,” Francis writes, arguing that technological solutions alone cannot address the deeper needs of the human heart.
He emphasizes that the meaning of the word “heart” is not sufficiently captured by biology, psychology, anthropology, or any other science.
“In this age of artificial intelligence, we cannot forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity. No algorithm will ever be able to capture, for example, the nostalgia that all of us feel, whatever our age, and wherever we live,” Francis writes.
The pope emphasizes that devotion to the Sacred Heart is not merely a private spiritual practice but has profound implications for social life and human relationships.
“The world can change, beginning with the heart,” he writes, connecting individual transformation with broader social renewal.
Sacred Heart teaching from Pius XII to Francis
The encyclical builds on centuries of Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart while offering fresh insights for modern challenges. Francis cites extensively from previous papal teachings, particularly from St. John Paul II.
“Devotion to the Sacred Heart, as it developed in Europe two centuries ago, under the impulse of the mystical experiences of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, was a response to Jansenist rigor, which ended up disregarding God’s infinite mercy,” the late pope writes.
“The men and women of the third millennium need the heart of Christ in order to know God and to know themselves; they need it to build the civilization of love.”
Heidegger, goosebumps, and the heart
In a significant theological and philosophical development, the encyclical engages deeply with modern thought, particularly through its discussion of German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s understanding of human emotion and understanding.
The pope cites Heidegger’s insight that “philosophy does not begin with a pure concept or certainty but with a shock,” as “without deep emotion, thought cannot begin. The first mental image would thus be goosebumps.”
For Francis, this is where the heart comes in as it “listens in a non-metaphoric way to ‘the silent voice’ of being, allowing itself to be tempered and determined by it.”
‘A new civilization of love’: the path forward
“The heart is also capable of unifying and harmonizing our personal history, which may seem hopelessly fragmented,” the pope writes, “yet is the place where everything can make sense.”
“The Gospel tells us this in speaking of Our Lady, who saw things with the heart.”
The document calls for a renewal of traditional Sacred Heart practices on this understanding while emphasizing their contemporary relevance.
“Our communities will succeed in uniting and reconciling differing minds and wills, so that the Spirit can guide us in unity as brothers and sisters. Reconciliation and peace are also born of the heart. The heart of Christ is ‘ecstasy,’ openness, gift, and encounter.”
The pope concludes by connecting this spiritual vision to the Church’s broader mission in the modern world, calling for what he — following St. John Paul II — terms a “civilization of love” built on the foundation of Christ’s love.
This vision also connects directly to previous social encyclicals by Pope Francis, Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti, presenting Christ’s love as the foundation for addressing and solving contemporary challenges.
Hanna Brockhaus contributed to this report.
The pope concludes by connecting this spiritual vision to the Church’s broader mission in the modern world, calling for what he — following St. John Paul II — terms a “civilization of love” built on the foundation of Christ’s love.
i, GUNNER Q, Alex Jones & a certain guy(i can’t remember the name of right now) in Canada(who was Alex Jones before Jones was) i first found out about in late ’03 know what he means there e.g. the NWO ushered forth by the RCC, Freemasons, Lucerfarians & their BFFS the R’S & D’s = fedpillers=redpillers=tradcon=feminist alliance of deceit & treachery against MEN & Boys on a global scale(”rp genius leaders” know that & encourage it with the international p@on cartel and cabal-which they are trying to lock in the insanely inflated prices of by trying to legalize worldwide prostitution now).
i, GUNNER Q, Alex Jones & a certain guy(i can’t remember the name of right now) in Canada(who was Alex Jones before Jones was) i first found out about in late ’03.
Now i remember his name Henry Makow AKA the creator of the Game Scruples(which fedpillers despise, detest & in general hate as morals let alone a game of morals.
Also here’s a woman fedpillers would despise for having g more guts than they or their gay ”Conservative” idol W. Bush ever have had.
https://all247news.quora.com/Deputy-Prime-Minister-of-Sweden-Ebba-Busch-Islam-must-adapt-to-Swedish-values-Muslims-who-do-not-integrate-must-leav?
Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Ebba Busch:
“Islam must adapt to Swedish values. Muslims who do not integrate must leave the country. Honour killings, beheadings, stoning of women and Sharia law have no place here.”
Fedpillers ”rp genius leaders” would now disagree with going against these especially ”Honour killings, beheadings, stoning of women” and Sharia law have no place here.
Those are almost ”set in stone” ”Christian” ”rp” rules/axioms to too many ”rp genius leaders” and their faux MANZ MANZ followers also now.