One of the conflicts presented in the Book of Daniel involves the power to ‘change the times and the seasons’.[1] In Dan 2:21 we find Daniel recounting his revelation regarding the king’s dream. He says that it is God who ‘…changes times and seasons…’
In Chapter 7, though, we read of one who will ‘…speak words against the Most High, and will harass the holy ones of the Most High, he will think of changing the times and the laws…’
The ‘he’ referred to in this passage is clearly Antiochus IV. As Vanderkam and others have argued, one of the changes that Antiochus forced upon the temple establishment was the use of the 354-day Seleucid calendar rather than the 364-day calendar that had been used during (at least) the period of the post-exilic Zadokite high priesthood.
Establishing via heavenly revelation that God is responsible for ‘times and seasons’ and then reporting that a gentile king would think to usurp God’s authority in that matter certainly counts as a conflict worthy of apocalyptic note. But that is not the only calendar conflict presented by the Daniel text. In fact, it is probably the least obscure.
The passage in Chapter 7 regarding Antiochus, quoted above, continues ‘…and they (meaning the holy ones of the Most High i.e. the Jews) will be delivered into his power for a time, times and half a time’. That text is written in Aramaic (Dan 7:25b). Transliterated, it reads:
v’yityahavun bideh ad-idan v’idanin u’flag idan
Note the triple usage of the word idan; twice in the singular and once in the plural.
The term u’flag idan appears to unambiguously mean ‘half a time’. So, the translation ‘a time, times and half a time’ is uncontroversial. (The term idanin acts in Aramaic like some plurals do in Hebrew i.e. to double the value of the term referenced.)
So, arithmetically we have a value equal to 1 + 2 + ½ = 3 ½ ‘times’ where times is understood to mean years.
The issue that occupies commentators is how to ‘fit’ this value to the duration of the desecration of the temple, since that is assumed to be the meaning of the reference. And, confounding the commentators, there does not seem to be any way to make the 3 ½ ‘times’ interpretation correspond to any known historical dates.
That is not the only instance of this reference and calculation, though. In Daniel’s final vision in Chapter 12 there is a parallel passage. There Daniel is recounting an exchange with a heavenly being. He has learned that a time of great trouble and distress will come. He is told ‘And there shall be a time of trouble such as never has been seen…’ (12:1) and he asks: ‘How long until the end of these awful things?’ (12:6b)
The heavenly being swears by ‘the Ever-Living One’ that the awful period will extend only ‘for a time, times and half a time’, after which the promises to the holy people will be fulfilled. The language in this part of Daniel is Hebrew, not Aramaic, and in transliterated form, it reads:
L’moed, moadim, va’chetzi
This phrase in Dan 12:7b is translated in the same way as the parallel Aramaic phrase from 7:25b. However, if we look closely at the two, we find that there is a significant difference. The last term of the phrase, which is unambiguous in the Aramaic i.e. ‘and half a time’, is not unambiguous in the Hebrew.
The final word of the Aramaic version makes it clear that the ‘half’ refers to the same unit of measure i.e. idan or ‘time’. But the corresponding word moed is missing in the Hebrew. That is, the Hebrew phrase does not end with va’chetzi moed, as we would expect if the parallel is to be maintained. It ends simply va’chetzi i.e ‘and half’.
Why is that significant?
It is significant because it opens the interpretation to a different possibility. The question allowed by this lack of parallelism is, half of what?
This is the comparison of the customary interpretation with an alternate that is quite reasonable:
Customary interpretation:
A time, times and a half =
(1 + 2) + ½ = 3 ½ times
And here is an alternate interpretation that simply views the arithmetic differently:
(1 + 2) = 3 + (3 x ½) = 4 ½ times
That is:
1 time + 2 times = 3 times.
Plus, ½ of (the sum of 1 time plus two times) = 1 ½.
Or, the sum = 3 + 1 ½ = 4 ½ times.
How might the alternate approach, resulting in a total of 4 ½ units of time rather than 3 ½ help us to understand the ending of Daniel’s last vision?
Chapter 12:11-12 reads as follows: ‘And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.’
James A Montgomery in his classic commentary on Daniel[2] quotes and follows the opinion of Gunkle (and others) that these two measures i.e. 1,290 days and 1,335 days ‘are successive glosses intended to prolong the term of 1,150 days announced at 8:14’ because it was clear that the time of oppression was not ended in 1,150 days.
John Collins, in his 1984 analysis of Daniel for the series The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, essentially agrees, adding editorially: ‘Remarkably, the contradictory numbers were allowed to remain side by side. The exact date was not ultimately important, or perhaps it was regarded as yet another of the mysteries that was only revealed in symbolic code.’[3]
If we accept that the exact date or dates that produce the numbers 1,290 and 1,335 are not ultimately important, perhaps it is the difference between the two that we’re meant to consider. That difference is 45 days.
If we interpret the arithmetic of Chapter 12 in the alternate version, there are 4 ½ ‘units’ or ‘times’ of difference. Each of those units or times is equal, then, to ten days. If a ‘time’ is understood as meaning a year, the issue is that one measure of a year is 10 days longer than the other.
Could the difference between the Aramaic and the Hebrew phrases, and the alternate interpretation of the times described in them, provide the explanation for the otherwise ‘mysterious’ gap of 45 days?
Daniel writes ‘blessed is he who waits’ the additional 45 days.
In Chapter 82 of 1 Enoch, those who count the number of days in the calendar correctly are termed ‘righteous’.
Are Daniel’s ‘blessed’ and Enoch’s ‘righteous’ held in such regard for the same reason?
Does Daniel signal the ‘blessedness’ of the 364-day calendar as do his contemporary apocalypticists, Enoch and the author of Jubilees?
I think that is at least a reasonable possibility. It is one that I’ll continue to pursue as I continue the study of the apocalypses of the 2nd century BCE.
© Charles R. Lightner
[1] All translations are from the New JPS Tanakh.
[2] Montgomery, J.A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel. The International Critical Commentary. Original publication by T & T Clark. Edinborgh. 1927. Reprinted by Varda Books. Skokie, IL. 2016. p 477
[3] Collins, John J. Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. Kindle Edition.