Page 264 - Daniel

assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology
fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of
infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of
the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.
As we have seen, the early Jewish and Christian exegesis came to

interpret that datum eschatologically and found it fulfilled in the fall
of Jerusalem; only slowly did the theme of prophecy of the Advent of
Christ impress itself upon the Church, along with the survival,
however, of other earlier themes. The early Church rested no claims
upon the alleged prophecy, but rather remarkably ignored it in a

theological atmosphere surcharged with Messianism. The great
Catholic chronographers naturally attacked the subject with scientific
zeal, but their efforts as well as those of all subsequent chronographers
(including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed. 26

In other words, Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge
of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable
interpretation at all.

Goldingay takes a slightly different approach, but arrives at essentially
the same conclusion. “A fundamental objection to such attempts either
to vindicate or to fault Daniel’s figures is that both are mistaken in
interpreting the 490 years as offering chronological information. It is not

chronology but chronography: a stylized scheme of history used to
27
interpret historical data rather than arising from them….” In essence
he seems to argue that no precise historical fulfillment can be found
because one was never intended. But such a view ignores precise
historical markers at the beginning of the chapter (vv. 1–2) as well as
Gabriel’s announcement that what follows was God’s answer to Daniel’s
prayer, designed to give Daniel “insight and understanding.” The vision

must relate to Daniel’s prayer for the ultimate restoration of the Jewish
people, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple.

Some conservative scholars have done no better, however, as
illustrated by Young. He treats the Scriptures with reverence, but finds
no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy weeks of the prophecy and
leaves it more or less like Montgomery, without a satisfactory
explanation. 28