III. Variations Injected in Daniel 9

The original Alexandrian version of Daniel avoided Hebraisms which that of Theodotion subsequently restored, but the earlier translation contained glosses on the text, and in the historical portion expressions appear that were evidently intended to make the narrative more acceptable and under standable. ^{13Ibid. pp. 376, 377.} In the passage on the seventy weeks in Daniel 9, attempts were made to modify the text so as to give it the obvious appearance of an early fulfillment, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. There are noticeable differences between this paraphrasing of the text of Daniel 9 arid the Masoretic Hebrew text which is the basis of our English versions.PFF1 173.1

The first twenty-three verses are faithfully rendered, says Boutflower, but the reconstruction of the vision of the seventy weeks (verses 24-27) makes the real intent of the original scarcely recognizable. The translator not only turns commentator but dismembers the text. Then he attempts, rather unsuccessfully, to put together again what was once a glorious, far-reaching prophecy. ^{14Bouthower, op. cit., pp. 170-172.} The result is a distortion and confusion of this four-verse section. In verse 24 the term “anoint” is replaced by “gladden.” In verse 25 the differences are many—not a single clause remaining intact. The date from which the prophecy was designed to start disappears—the only idea left being the rebuilding of Jerusalem. So the key to the timing was definitely taken away. That made any application, as to time, well-nigh impossible.PFF1 173.2

In verse 26 there is an expansion of the “threescore and two weeks” period into “seven and seventy and sixty-two.” Instead of the “cutting off” of “the anointed one,” a double action concerning the anointing is made out—the anointing to be removed, and the anointed one to be corrupted or destroyed, as well as the city and the sanctuary.PFF1 173.3

In verse 27, instead of “seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks,” we find “seven and seventy times and 62 of years”— the significantly interpretative phrase “of years” being inserted. This, says Pusey, is actually a falsification of the time. Boutflower explains that, when the vowel points are omitted, the same Hebrew characters (shb’im) stand for both “weeks” and “seventy,” thus rendering it easy to confuse the intent of the original prophecy. ^{15Boutflower, op. cit., pp. 173, 174; Pusey, op. cit., P. 379.}PFF1 173.4

The significant point here is the phrase “62 of years.” Sixty-two what of years? Evidently, from the context of the seventy-week prophecy, it must mean sixty-two weeks of years: ^{16Sixty-two is given as the Greek numeral, an “years” is in the enitive case, eton. We are told that in Greek a point of time is expressed by the locative case (as “in the year of the flood”); an extent of time is expressed by the accusative (as “he ruled three years”), and the kind of time by the genitive (“at night he needs a lantern”). Thus “years” denotes the kind of time being measured-periods of years, not of days or of some other unit. (See A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, pp. 227, 236.)}PFF1 174.1

Then, the confirming of the covenant with many for “one week” is replaced by “the covenant shall have power with many,” and the “one week” by “many weeks.” Finally, the “midst of the week” becomes “the end of the week.” ^{17Pusey, op. cit., p. 379. Charles H. H. Wright likewise makes extensive observations on these Septuagint alterations in his Daniel and His Prophecies, pp. 201-223.} This amazing performance of mangling the prophecy, in an attempt to apply it prematurely, would inevitably neutralize any clear prophetic basis for an advent expectancy at the time of the first advent, except in the Hebrew originals. Such was the serious aspect of this Alexandrian translator’s attempt to tamper with the reading of Daniel 9:24-27 in the Greek.PFF1 174.2