Volume Three Objection 4.19



This is the second article addressing Dr. Michael Brown’s ‘responses’ to Jewish Objections to Jesus regarding Daniel 9.  This one will deal with section 4.19: “Daniel 9:24 was clearly not fulfilled by Jesus.” Dr. Brown is here trying to make his first attempt to show that Daniel 9 is really about Jesus and that he fulfilled what it says. In order to decide if he succeeds or not it is helpful to compare and contrast how Jewish sources have seen Daniel 9:24-27 (and especially for this objection verse 24) and how Christians like Dr. Brown see it.[1]


In my article on Daniel 9 part 2, I explained the Biblical chronology of Daniel 9, and explained how the Rabbis understood it. Let me review the main points of Daniel 9:


  1. In verses 9:1-2 we see Daniel contemplating when the end of the Babylonian exile (then under the Persians) would end. G-d had promised a 70 year exile to the prophet Jeremiah and he was working out the time.
  2. In verses 9:3-19 Daniel prays about the destruction and asks for forgiveness for the sins of the nation.
  3. In verses 9:20-21 Daniel announces the arrival of the angel Gavriel.
  4. In verses 9:22-23 Gavriel introduces his message that will be an answer to Daniel’s question.
  5. In verses 9:24-27 Gavriel Announces a 490 year period that has been decreed.


In all the above, Christians and Jews agree. However in the last point, the understanding of the message of the 490 years is where they disagree.


Dr Brown states clearly what is his (and the Christian) view of this verse (emphasis mine). He states:  “Daniel 9:24 sums, up the main events to be accomplished during the period of the seventy weeks of years.” [2] On the same page in his summary he makes his main point: “Since Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of events that must be fulfilled before the destruction of the Second Temple (which took place in 70 CE), the question that must be asked is this: If Jesus did not fulfill Daniel 9:24, who did?”


He is making here two claims:

  1. These six things must be accomplished by an individual.
  2. They must occur before the end of the 490 year period.


However the Jewish view is different. The majority view, as I discuss in part 2 of my article, is that this period was a test, either they will accomplish these 6 points or the temple will be destroyed. This is similar to the first entrance to the land of Israel. At that time G-d tells the Jewish people to keep his laws, and if not they will go into exile. Here they are told to do these 6 things or else the temple will be destroyed and they will go into exile. The proof that these 6 were not fulfilled is that the temple was destroyed. It also applies exclusively to the People of Israel, and not to the world, or an individual[3]. The people were to accomplish the 6 things.


We have a clear difference in what the expected facts are to be which will tell us who is incorrect. For Dr. Brown, ALL 6 things are to be done by an individual, but the Jewish view is that they apply to the whole nation. For Dr. Brown, ALL of the 6 things need to be accomplished before 70 CE, but according to the Jewish view they need not be, but can/will be accomplished at a later date.


This sets us up with a clear test of which side can be correct. If ALL 6 things have been fulfilled by Jesus two thousand years ago, then the Jewish view is wrong.[4] If they did not occur, then the Christian view is wrong.



Examination of the 6 Phrases:


Let’s look at verse 24 in the KJV and JPS versions so we can try to understand what is meant by the verse:




9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.




9:24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place.



Dr Brown’s contention that it refers to an individual is clearly NOT there in the text. As the KJV says: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” This is something regarding the people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem exclusively. In fact, interestingly, if it were an individual he/she would have done this ONLY for the people of Israel, as this applies only to them. So we must conclude that these 6 things need to be accomplished by the people of Israel and not something one individual does. One of his key points has been show false.


As to his second point let us look at the six points in Verse 24, with some explanation of the Hebrew to help us to understand the translations, and see what they mean. The translations are from the KJV, JPS and I will add Artscroll to give a more traditional view:


Point 1: “to finish the transgression[5]” (KJV, JPS), “to terminate transgression.” (Artscroll) The verb used here means to stop or to restrain, and is used to indicate that something has ceased, for that reason it is translated ‘to finish’. I think either translation captures the nuances of the Hebrew. The KJV/JPS better capture that ‘transgression’ is singular in the Hebrew, but the meaning seems to cover all transgressions, and not just one specific one.[6]


Do we see that transgressions have ended? I don’t think so.


Point 2: “to make an end of sins” (KJV), “to make an end of sin” (JPS),”to end sin” (Artscroll). The verb here has a written and read form.[7] Neither changes the meaning. (Written: to complete, Read:  to seal. Both understood as meaning: to finish) The KJV seems a little better in that it captures that ‘sins’ is plural, although the others do not contradict that.


Are there still sins in Israel/ the world? Yes there are.


Point 3: “to make reconciliation for iniquity” (KJV) “to forgive iniquity” (JPS) “to wipe away iniquity” (Artscroll). The verb here is ‘kapar’ which always indicates the atonement, forgiveness or wiping away of sins. In this case, the KJV is clearly wrong. As reconciliation is not a meaning of the word. The NASB version[8] says “to make atonement for iniquity” this is possible, but the subject is ‘the people/the holy city’. It is for them to ‘make atonement’, not an individual.


Christians will contend that this has clearly been accomplished, but this can be argued against since not all iniquities have been forgiven according to Christian beliefs, only those of people who believed in Jesus. And it is not for all of Israel as the context requires. I don’t see how they can claim that the Artscroll view has been done. I think the Christian side clearly loses here.


Point 4: “and to bring in everlasting righteousness” (KJV JPS). “and to bring everlasting righteousness” (Artscroll). All the translations are in agreement as to the translation here. This seems a clear indication of the Messianic age where the ‘world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d’ as it says in Isaiah 11.


Unfortunately the world is still filled with unrighteousness, and so this has not happened.


Point 5:  “to seal up the vision and prophecy” (KJV) “to seal vision and prophet” (JPS, Artscroll). This could mean either to end the prophetic period, which would probably mean those who wrote the books in our Tenach, although Christians seem to believe that ‘prophecy’ still goes on. Another meaning is that it refers to the fulfilling of prophecy.  Christians would say that prophecy has been fulfilled with Jesus. However, Jews do not accept that the Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled, or that he gets two chances to do them in. Since he has failed to fulfill the previous points it seems the Christian position is overstated.


Point 6: “to anoint the most Holy” (KJV) “to anoint the most holy place” (JPS) “to anoint the Holy of Holies” (Artscroll) All three seem to indicate the same thing. The Hebrew used for this place is the one used for the Temple, or things being used in it that are separated for holiness.


If this refers to the final temple as seems most likely since all the other points seem to have finality to them, then this has not occurred. If it refers to the second temple, then it has[9]. We therefore have to judge that this has also not occurred.


Just to show that the translations used here are not ‘biased’, here are the translations of three other popular Christian translations, none of which is significantly different from the three quoted above.


New International Version (NIV):  24 “Seventy ‘sevens’] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.


New American Standard Bible (NASB): 24 “Seventy]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to the transgression, to]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and]prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.


Revised Standard Version (RSV): 24 "Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.


From the above we see that there are serious problems with his view, and that the Jewish view has a strong case. We believe that Daniel 9:24 was not fulfilled by Jesus because:


  1. Daniel 9:24 is about the whole nation of Israel doing something and not an individual.
  2. Daniel 9:24 did not have to occur before the destruction of the temple in 70CE
  3. Daniel 9:24 lists things that we can verify if they were done or not and they have as yet not been fulfilled, by either Jesus, or the nation of Israel.



Dr. Brown’s Response:


However, Dr. Brown has produced an argument, and I will outline it here, and then deal with it in detail. Dr. Brown’s answer/response is divided into three parts:


  1. Three explanations of the 6 things of Daniel 9:24 and Brown’s critique of them. (page 92-95)
  2. Brown’s own explanation of the 6 things. (page 95-98)
  3. His conclusion (page 98-100)


Of the three explanations the first two are from Christians who seem to hold to the same type of views as Brown, Walter Kaiser and James E Smith.  He then brings the view of Christian scholar John J. Collins.  Following this he gives the positive and negative points to these views[10].  I think the negative view of the Christian explanation is very enlightening. They are:


  1. “It struggles with the meaning of anointing a most holy, applying this to Jesus instead of to the temple.”
  2. “It seems to fall short of the mark in terms of total fulfillment, since the world is still filled with sin and unrighteousness…”


What is most interesting is that, while this is supposed to be an answer to Jewish objections, he has not quoted a single Jewish explanation on Daniel 9:24!! He seems to never engage the Jewish objection and what it is based on[11].


On page 95, in the introduction to his explanation of Daniel 9:24, he has stated two premises, as if they were a priori truths, for which he provides NO SUPPORT, and which are contrary to the Jewish interpretation and the basis for it: They are:


  1. Daniel 9:24 is about something an individual must do.
  2. Daniel 9:24 must be fulfilled by that person before 70 CE.


We need to see this in his own words (emphasis mine):


“Since the prophesied events had to take place before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and since the most natural interpretation of these events points to Yeshua’s atoning death, it is only logical to begin with him and ask to what extent he fulfilled each of the six divine promises in Daniel 9:24.”


He is here asserted as fact, what he needs to PROVE in order to counter the Jewish objections. Why does he think it is an individual, contrary to the text stating explicitly that it is about the people of Israel? Why does he think that these have to be fulfilled before 70 CE, rather then that they are conditions to be met in order that the temple not be destroyed paralleling similar statements made by G-d when the Jewish people entered the land the first time? Failure to answer these questions means he has not answered the Jewish objection.


If it is not about an individual but about what the Jewish people need/will do, then it is irrelevant when it is to be fulfilled, since it has nothing to do with Jesus. And if it does not need to be before 70CE, then they no longer have this as a ‘proof’ for Jesus’ atoning mission.  If either are false (or both) then his discussion of what the 6 points are about is only Academic at best and an attempt to place a square peg in a round hole at worst.


The above statement by Dr. Brown shows that either he has not fully understood the objection, or he has no answer to it. Here is one of the many examples in his books, of his use of an argument by assertion. He accepts it as a given premise that these two points are to be ignored, asserting their opposite as being the truth without proof. In fact, he has IGNORED the depth of the problem and the real objection and only addressed the issue he wants to, leaving the objection in place. Were it not to apply it an individual, or were these things not required to be fulfilled before 70 CE, he would not be able to point to Jesus in Daniel 9:24. It is as simple as that.



Dr. Brown’s Explanation of the 6 Phrases:


Although he has failed to answer the objection, we will now turn our attention to his attempted ‘explanation’ and see if he can prove that Jesus did these things BEFORE 70 CE as he is required to do by his own theory of what Daniel 9:24 is about. What is interesting is how similar these views are to the ones by Kaiser and Smith which he criticized and rejected above. We could repeat his object to their views and apply them to Dr. Brown on his views.


On point 1[12] he translates ‘to finish transgression’ following the NIV translation[13]. He states (emphasis mine): “This probably means bringing sin to its ugly, final climax, as opposed to bringing it to an end.” He then states[14] “This is similar to G-d’s word to Abram in Genesis 15:12-16, explaining that Abram’s descendants would have to wait four hundred years to inherit the Promised Land because ‘the sin of the Amorites [who then inhabited the land] has not yet reached its full measure.’”


This sounds nice, but the problem is that the Hebrew DOES NOT say what he is claiming, and I am sure he knows enough Hebrew to know that. The word in Genesis is ’shalom’, which can take a meaning indicating fullness or completion. But the word in Daniel ‘kaleh’ does not have that meaning or nuance in Hebrew. It has the meaning of something being stopped, ended or restrained completely. That is why the verb ‘finish’ is used in all the translations, except Artscroll which uses the word, terminate, which has a similar meaning. Dr. Brown is using ‘creative’ translation here to create his meaning when the text does not support it. He needs to do this to counter the view of Archer[15], who he has quoted, who claims that this was not fulfilled in the time of Jesus.


Archer is right; this was not fulfilled before 70 CE, as Dr. Brown requires to fit his misinterpretation of Daniel 9:24. He has failed to show that point 1 was already fulfilled by Jesus before 70 CE.


On point 2 (emphasis mine): “’To put an end to sin’. This phrase also could be interpreted in one of two ways, as speaking of a still-future event that will be ushered in with the Messiah’s return (this is the position of Archer and others[16]) or as referring to the Messiah’s atoning death on the cross, an event of cosmic proportions that did, in fact, deal a death blow to the power of sin.[17]” Notice his moving of the goal posts here?


Let me deal with his second choice first. He has been forced to again use some translational gymnastics. Nothing appears in the text about the ‘power’ of sin, just sin itself. His view does not conform to what the verse says. He does this to avoid admitting that sin still exists, which is obvious. But what does the ‘power of sin’ mean? Do Christians not sin? Are they no longer capable of sinning? That is clearly false. It is just a meaningless phrase, to obfuscate. Sin is still here, Jesus did not put an end to it. That’s why the fallback position (his first part) is here.


His second interpretation fails because by saying that this point is for the future (as Archer does), it is an admission that Jesus didn’t fulfill what he was ‘supposed’ to according to what Dr. Brown initially claimed. Just like a half truth is a complete lie, a prophecy waiting to be fulfilled is an unfulfilled prophecy. His admission that Jesus has not fulfilled Daniel 9:24, is an agreement that the Jewish objection that Jesus did not fulfill Daniel 9:24 is true. That is the Jewish objection. QED. Game over. Time for the fat lady to sing. End of story!


Point 3: “’to atone for wickedness’. This statement sums up the very heart of the Messiah’s mission on earth.[18]” There are a few problems with this. First, who says his death brings atonement?? What is the proof? The argument here is one of assertion without proof. Second, do Christians believe his death atoned for all sin, or only sins of those who believe in him? Surely the later is the case, but contextually, just as the first two points we covered were general, this is also general, and it means all sins of all people (actually only of Israel since this is only about them) having been atoned for/forgiven. But that is obviously not the case.


He ends this discussion of point 3 with a classic fallacious argument: “It is only fair to ask, If one of the central redemptive events described in Daniel’s prophecy was ‘to atone for wickedness,’ and if this event was to take place before the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE, and if this was the whole focus of Yeshua’s ministry, why then seek a different explanation and overlook the most important atoning event in human history.[19]


Even were all the premises true the conclusion would still not follow. When trying to understand a passage, one looks at all possible explanations and sees which best fits what appears in the text. Maybe in one point Jesus seems better, but fails in the others, or another explanation better covers all of them? Look at the second premise, with regards to fulfillment before 70 CE; this is an assertion Dr. Brown makes which he has never offered any evidence for. As I have pointed out, this is not agreed upon.


In the end he has stated nothing more then an unproved Christian assertion, which does not even fit the language of the text. He provides no proof, or an argument that leads us to believe it could be true.


On the 4th point he states: “’to bring in everlasting righteousness.’ As with the first two phrases, this could point either to the culmination of the Messiah’s work when he returns and establishes G-d’s righteous kingdom on the earth (again, Archer’s position) or to the Messiah’s work on the cross, which brought about ‘the gift of righteousness’ spoken of by Paul in Romans 5:17…”


As I pointed out above, his first point here just proves that the Jewish objection is true. Jesus has NOT fulfilled Daniel 9:24 although Christians CLAIM he will return and do it. The second point is really the only one Dr. Brown can honestly propose, since he has stated explicitly[20] that everything must be fulfilled before 70 CE. But here he has changed the meaning of the words of Daniel. It is not talking of a ‘gift’ that SOME people can receive, but something that all (or all of Israel) had received, which has not occurred.


As I said before in point 2, the mention of the escape clause of future fulfillment is a damning confession of the obvious: Jesus did not do this.


Dr. Brown’s approach to point 5 is interesting: “’to seal up vision and prophet.’ This could mean to ‘authenticate’ or ‘to hide’.[21]” He seems to understand ‘authenticate’ as meaning ‘fulfill’, which in that sense would be fine, but the argument is an assertion. If you believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, then he did this, but if not then he didn’t. Dr. Brown is asserting a conclusion for which he needs to provide proof. 


The second possible meaning to hide is very interesting. A similar meaning for this word is found at the end of Daniel 12. Dr. Brown states: “G-d judged those who rejected him[22] with hardness of heart, thus hiding the truth of the prophetic Scriptures from them.[23]” I am not sure what his point is here and how it fits the phrase. Obviously Jesus is not hiding anything here, so it does not apply to him. But is he arguing that G-d is doing the hiding? This would indicate that G-d gave clear prophecies and then HE made sure the people would not understand them, so that they could be condemned[24]!! That is theologically and Biblically very problematic. It would also seem contrary to the positive nature of the other points of Daniel 9. I just don’t see how this can be made to work according to how Dr. Brown is approaching it.


Now we need to deal with the 6th and final point: “To anoint the most holy”. Dr. Brown admits he has a problem with it when he says: “This is perhaps the most difficult phrase to explain with reference to Jesus.[25]” In fact he quotes Archer as saying: “This is not likely a reference to the anointing of Christ.[26]” But earlier on page 94 when criticizing the Christian viewpoints he stated: “It struggles with the meaning of anointing a most holy, applying this to Jesus instead of to the temple.” He has already said that it doesn’t apply to Jesus. Dr. Brown seems confused here. Then he says: (Emphasis mine): “Since the first five phrases can so readily be explained with reference to him, it seems only logical to see if this phrase too could apply to him.[27]” If he can’t keep his arguments straight, how can we be expected to accept them?


In any case, Dr. Brown provides three possible but contradictory explanations. First, he repeats Archer’s view that it refers to the future, and specifically to the future Temple. The multiple problems with this view have been mentioned already.


Second, he disagrees with the view of Archer that ‘most holy’ never applies to a person. He points out 1 Chronicles 23:13 where it applies to Aaron, and concludes that it can apply to a person, Jesus. There are problems with this. First, he does not understand how the word is used and the nuances of it. The word translated ‘most holy’ appears 20 times in the Tenach. 18 of them appear in the Torah or the book of Ezekiel. ALL of these uses apply to things (objects or animals) or places which are separated for use in the Temple service or the place where the Temple itself would stand. The 19th is Chronicles, which is no different than the other 18. Here Aaron and his sons are being separated, like the animals in the Torah for use in the Temple. Therefore the 20th, Daniel, must refer to the Temple (or something separated for use in it.) There is a second problem, and that is the issue of anointing. Anointing was a public ceremony, and such a thing did not occur with Jesus.[28]


He then brings the view of the Ramban that it applies to the Messiah. However, the Ramban’s view is that all of these things were not meant to occur until AFTER the 490 year period.[29] I do not think Dr. Brown would want to base his exegesis on an understanding which is so diametrically opposed to his. Another point is that the word Kodesh in Hebrew has two meanings, which really relate to which other. It means something separated (the Biblical word for a prostitute comes from the same root, because she is separated for immoral actions.) The word ‘sanctified’ is used when the ‘separation’ is for a holy purpose. What the Ramban says is: “this refers to the Messiah, the one separated from among the sons of David.[30]”  The Ramban does not give us any explanation of how he arrives at this view. His view is unique among Jewish commentators and as such, we don’t understand on what he bases it. This is a very poor basis for an argument, and relies only on an appeal to authority.


Finally he claims it could refer to a ‘spiritual temple’. But this is absurd, and ignores the context and what Daniel was asking about and was told about. This sounds like Harold Camping, redefining his prophecy to some ‘spiritual’ fulfillment, when it failed to materialize. Daniel’s concern was about the destruction of the old temple, and he was informed of the building of the second one. There was nothing spiritual in this, nor would that have been an answer to his question.


I think that Dr. Brown’s approach to this last phrase is very telling and needs to be explored. He has given two conditions: 1 that these things occur in the 490 year period and 2 that it was to be accomplished by an individual i.e. Jesus. It appears from here and the earlier phrases, that if he cannot get it to fit Jesus, then he will abandon either partially or wholly the 490 years, or even the simple meaning of the text. However, in this phrase the most obvious explanation, which would keep it in the 490 years and also be unchallengeable, is ignored, because it is not about Jesus. This would be if he would say it is about the second temple. A simple obvious exegesis is ignored for a strained one in order for it to fit his preconceived conclusions.


Let us summarize the results: Before going into his discussion of the six phrases, he states that two conditions 1. That they apply to things expected before 70 CE and 2 that they are to be done by an individual. He has failed to prove this for all 6. He has likewise ignored the Jewish objection, by ignoring WHY they object to his view.



Dr. Brown’s Concluding Remarks:


Following this discussion of the 6 phrases he comes to his conclusions. On page 98 he presents us with TWO possibilities, fulfillment in the 490 years or ultimate fulfillment later. But on page 95 he categorically claims that they needed to be fulfilled in the 490 years, to be the truth. He repeats that a few times afterwards. However on page 99 he makes this statement which totally contradicts what he said on page 95:


“I reiterate, then, my premise: If all the events spoken of in Daniel 9:24-27 had to be fulfilled before 70 CE, then Jesus must be the central, anointed figure involved in their fulfillment, bringing redemption and forgiveness to his people. If the events spoken of in the text were partially fulfilled before 70 CE and will only reach their total fulfillment at the end of this age, then this too can only be interpreted with a reference to Jesus…[31]


What is he reiterating? A view he never held! Here is what appears on page 95:


“Since the prophesied events had to take place before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and since the most natural interpretation of these events points to Yeshua’s atoning death, it is only logical to begin with him and ask to what extent he fulfilled each of the six divine promises in Daniel 9:24.”


Is it that failing to prove this, he needs an ad hoc backup plan? Wasn’t the point here to PROVE that Jesus has FULFILLED Daniel 9:24 and not that he WILL do it at some unspecified future date (which is fast approaching 2000 years of unfulfillment.)


But even in this rationalization, he has totally ignored the Jewish view, which presents two possibilities. The majority view that this period was a test, and in failing to fulfill the six points, the temple would be destroyed and exile would occur. This clearly fits the facts as they have occurred. Or the second view by Rashi and Ramban, that the 490 years and the 6 points were independent, and these 6 will occur later. This is also a possible explanation. HOWEVER, the problem with Dr. Brown’s backup plan is that it has no relationship to the text. Either the 6 things need to be done in the 490 years or they don’t. There is no middle path there in the words.


After this, Dr Brown[32] tries to bring a support to his view from what Rashi says on Daniel 2:44, but he has totally misunderstood it. The verse says that “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, it will crumble and destroy it.” Rashi refers this to the kingdom of the Messiah, which Brown claims means Jesus’ coming during the Roman Empire in the 1st century. However, the verse has the PLURAL, KINGS, and not King. If Brown had looked a little earlier, he would have seen that the fourth Beast (Rome) had a divided kingdom (which appears to be a clear reference to the Eastern and Western Empires, or maybe later), and during the time of these kings the kingdom would arise. So it clearly does not apply to Rome of the time of Jesus, which he had contended.


To conclude, Dr Brown has not shown that Jesus has fulfilled the 6 phrases. His attempt to change his goals by adding the ‘partial fulfillment’ issue is a glaring reminder of how weak his argument is, and it is an admission that he has failed to prove his point. He has not answered the Jewish objection based on a different understanding of the verses. He has not provided any reason to think that it is other then the Jewish view. He has not answered the Jewish objection to Christians reading Jesus into Daniel 9:24. Jesus HAS NOT fulfilled Daniel 9:24!!!



© Moshe Shulman 2011 http://www.judaismsanswer.com

For more information, questions answered, or help with missionaries you can reach Moshe Shulman at outreach@judaismsanswer.com.


[1]  It is, of course, logically possible for BOTH views to be in error. I am bringing the Jewish view in order to see the basis for the objection, and help in clarifying the issues involved.

[2]  Dr. Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Baker Books, 2003 page 92.

[3]  All Jewish commentators agree to this.

[4]  This does not mean that Brown’s view is true, since he still has the problem that the first point here does not fit the text, an issue that he has ignored in his response.

[5]  The Rabbis understand transgression to mean rebellious sins, iniquity to means intentional sin and ‘sin’ means unintentional sins. The technical meaning of transgression, iniquity, sin need not bother us now.

[6]  Although a possible case could be made that it refers specifically to idol worship, which was the main transgression of the First Temple period. However, I have not seen any commentary that I would rely upon that takes this view.

[7]  In Jewish tradition some texts are not read according to how they were written, but with a traditional reading.

[8]  Full text is below.

[9]  One Jewish commentator, Ibn Ezra, takes this view, but his is a unique view on this.

[10]  Brown, op cit page 94

[11]  This is called a ‘straw man fallacy’, something that is very common in Dr. Brown’s work.

[12]  Brown op cit, page 95

[13]  He follows the NIV translation for all the points.

[14]  Brown op cit page 96

[15]  Archer claims that the fulfillment would be in the 70th week which is to occur at a much later time. Dr. Brown is correct in rejecting this idea, as it destroys the 490 years as a single period, which is explicit in Daniel 9:24.

[16]  This is a view that he has already rejected earlier.

[17]  Brown, op cit page 96.

[18]  Brown op cit

[19]  Ibid

[20]  It was even part of his argument in point 3!!!

[21]  Brown op cit page 97

[22]  I believe he means Jesus here.

[23]  Brown op cit

[24]  Of course, Dr. Brown could be a Calvinist and believed that G-d condemns to eternal hell all except those few ‘elect’. But then that evil god is not the loving G-d of the Tenach who does not desire the death of the wicked etc.

[25]  Brown, op cit page 97

[26]  Ibid

[27]  Ibid

[28]  The New Testament records Jesus as having privately been anointed, but not only was it private, but it was not a ritual of any kind.

[29]  Rashi has a similar view, but maintains that this last phrase applies to the temple itself. The Ramban appears to be the only on with his particular view.

[30]  Chavel, Kisvei Ramban volume 1 page  281, translation mine.

[31]  Brown op cit page 99

[32]  Ibid