The prophecy initially mentions a period of 70 'weeks' and then proceeds
to describe a sequence of 7 'weeks' and 62 'weeks'.


But, where was the remaining 1 'weeks' to be placed?

Did it follow or proceed the span of 69 'weeks'? 

7 'weeks' 62 'weeks' 1 'weeks'

OR

1 'weeks' 7 'weeks' 62 'weeks'

Historically, theories have always placed this missing 1 'weeks' in the
70th position. As the so-called '70th week'.


      -  This was primarily done because it was thought that
         the prophecy was discussing 70 individual weeks and
         the mentioning of 7 + 62 weeks (in verses 25-26) and
         a following mention of a single week (in verse 27)
         seemed to reflect the proper order of these weeks.


However, as we have already discussed in the 'Introduction' page, the
Hebrew grammar for 'weeks' in this prophecy quite clearly shows that
individual weeks are not being discussed. This means the single 'week'
of verse 27 can not represent one of the 70 'weeks'.


The placement of the missing one 'weeks' has to be re-considered.


A remaining indication of placement in the 70th position:

      -  If the event which started the 69 'weeks', the decree to
         build Jerusalem, did not also start the 70 'weeks' then
         how would we know what event initiated the prophecy?


A reason for placement in the 1st position:

       -  The apparent timing conflict over the destruction of
          Jerusalem,

             verse 24       - upon the expiry of 70 'weeks'

             verses 25 & 26 - upon the expiry of the 69 'weeks',

          would then harmonize.



Despite a consideration of the prophecy it is apparent the ambiguity
over the placement of the missing one 'weeks' remains.

Through a determination of viable milestone events, the ambiguity can
be removed.