This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.
I do not know exactly what you mean by the words "no other scriptural source" in this statement. For you did not give even one "scriptural" source in your entire post. But it appears that you are speaking of sources commenting about the scriptures. And if that was what you meant, your information is sorely lacking.
The hard truth is, that all the earliest "Church Fathers" who commented on this passage interpreted it to involve a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks.
The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day is the last twelve chapters of the very famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heretics." In this work, Irenarus said:
"And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week." (“Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 25, “The fraud, pride, and tyrannical kingdom of Antichrist, as described by Daniel and Paul,” paragraph 4.)
Here we see Irenaeus, in describing the events he foresaw as coming in the future, explicitly quoting from Daniel’s prophecy of the seventieth week, saying, “And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” This is a quotation of Daniel 9:27, the last verse of Daniel’s discussion of what would take place in the seventy weeks of his prophecy.
Again, the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture (as opposed to a commentary on a scriptural subject) that has survived to the present day is a commentary on the book of Daniel written by Hippolytus. In this work Hippolytus said:
“For after sixty-two weeks was fulfilled and after Christ has come and the Gospel has been preached in every place, times having been spun out, the end remains one week away, in which Elijah and Enoch shall be present and in its half the abomination of desolation, the Antichrist, shall appear who threatens desolation of the world.
"After he comes, sacrifice and drink offering, which now in every way is offered by the nations to God, shall be taken away.” (“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hippolytus, Book 4, 35.3, from a draft copy of the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt.)
Much has been made of the comments by Clement of Alexandria, as he thought that the seventieth week had been fulfilled. But he interpreted the last half week to be the time of the siege of Jerusalem, which, as we all know, is thought to have ended in 70 A.D., or nearly 40 years after Messiah was cut off, which Daniel explicitly states would be "after the sixty-two weeks." As 40 years is MUCH longer than a "week," regardless of how the term is interpreted, we see that Clement of Alexandria also had a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks. Yes, it was much shorter than the gap seen by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, but it was just as definitely there in his interpretation as well.
Again, although his works have not been independently preserved, Jerome quoted Apollinarius of Laodicea as having said that “Jerusalem and the Temple shall be rebuilt during three and a half years within the final week.”(Jerome’s translation of the comments of Apollinarius of Laodicea on the seventy weeks, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pp. 104-105, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)
The only other "Church Fathers" that we know about who commented on this passage were Eusebius, Origen, and Tertullian, all of whom thought the seventy weeks had been fulfilled.
But from this we see that more than half of all the so-called "Church Fathers" who commented on this passage, including the earliest ones, saw a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks.
You correctly observed that Juilus Africanus thought we should calculate these years based on a 354 day year, but he said this due to an erroneous conclusion that the Hebrew year was 354 days. But numerous scriptures clearly show that in Bible days, the Hebrew "year" was divided into 12 "months" of 30 days each, that is, 360 days total. This is seen in the twelve (30day) courses of the priesthood set up by Solomon and by the fact that all the time periods specified in Bible prophecy line up and correspond exactly when we count a year as 12 months of 30 days each. Thus, when calculated this way, half a week, 3-1/2 years, 42 months, and 1260 days, are all exactly the same. So just by inspection, it is obvious that this was done.
We also should note that the Bible never, even once, calls any of these periods a "year." In both testaments, it uses terms that would obviously be understood to mean a year, but it never, even once, uses that word. So people who want to insist that 365-1/4 day years were meant, have zero scriptural or historical basis for their claim.
