The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:
spin wrote:Thanks for that sage advice, Neil.
neilgodfrey wrote:Anything to help end the interminable war between the big-enders and the little-enders.
spin wrote:But Neil, what do posterior dimensions have to do with the discussion?
Swift's point: Everything, yet nothing. Each time tweedledum makes a point it is so damn predictable to the spectator how tweedledee will respond. Neither contestant has any interest in addressing the fundamentals of the position of the other. That would be too much work, too laborious, too boring. What's happening now is much more fun.
This is not a new discussion on the subject, Neil. The discussion has been on and off for over a decade. Your limited perception of the process does not reflect it. Your droll analogies with Alice in Wonderland and minor chip technology complexities are your chiffon contribution to the fun.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:What one sees here is primarily a sparring between two opposing attitudes; the specific points made are merely the weapons of choice. I happen to be old fashioned enough to think that until one can present an argument in its strongest possible form then one is not really in a position to engage with it seriously. I suspect neither side has the ability at this point of the game to present the argument of the other -- I suspect neither really knows where the other is coming from.
And I suspect you should be wasting your talents on threads in which you are up to the topic. My basic position in this thread is little different from current scholarship on Daniel's visions. You have no vantage point from which to make judgments. Your perception of the discussion is at best superficial and that's fine—it isn't one of your topics—so knock of the grandstand commentary and get back to your stuff.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
You seem to forget that I talked about Zerubbabel going missing in Zech 6, when I first mentioned the issue, based on the fact that the narrative gives Yeshua alone receiving the coronation, Zerubbabel notably absent. I also indicated that he was present earlier in Zechariah, citing the two messiahs. I have also said that no other person of significance is mentioned in Zech 6. You are not saying anything here that I haven't already dealt with. There is no-one other than Yeshua at the coronation, he receives the crowns, not one, and the text does not allow you to change the subject. The context necessitates that Yeshua was enthroned and given rule.
So Zerubbabel is not in Zech 6. So what? Yeshua was enthroned and given rule? No text puts that Yeshua as a ruler. Later (2 verses after Yeshua received the crowns), these crowns are allocated:
"And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD." (Zec 6:14)

For a recap, here are the two preceding verses (Zec 6:12-13)
"and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.
It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both."'


But who is that man called Branch who will rebuild the temple? The answer is in Zec 4:9:
"The hands of Zerub'babel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you."

What about the name Branch?
Likely coming from 'Jeremiah', a book that "Daniel" knew about (Dan 9:2):
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land" (Jer 23:5)
and
"In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." (Jer 33:15)

A branch from David? Zerubbabel was a descendant of David (1Ch 3:19) but Yeshua was not.
And what is a sabbath of years? We know that seven sabbaths of years is forty-nine years. Yes, a sabbath of years is a group of seven years. Gosh.
Yes, except that "Daniel" did not use "Sabbath" and specify "of years". "of years" in 'Daniel" is just imagined (by many, I have to say). And "weeks" not a sure thing because it brings the seventy weeks of years 112 years farther than it should. It is what you call inaccuracy.
Yes, it seems to be dual in Hebrew; that does not change the fact that the masculine indicates a week
The masculine plural indicates (normally) two weeks.
Lester Grabbe states that it was—in the generation prior to his writing—"a considerable consensus that 1 Esdras preceded Ezra–Nehemiah."
If it is so, then 1 Esdras also has what is in Esdras, that is the mention of Artaxerxes as a Persian king coming after Darius, and Zerubbabel in Jerusalem soon after Cyrus' decree and at least up to the completion of the temple.
Yes, I cannot prove that "Daniel" knew 1 Esdras, but it is likely "Daniel" did, just as he knew about 'Jeremiah'. And Jesus Son of Sirach (who wrote at about the same time than Daniel part 2) knew about Nehemiah (from 'Nehemiah or 2 Esdras), both books mentioning Artaxerxes as a Persian king coming after Darius I.
We call that "regency". He was never king, just had the proxy to wield power. It is historical error to call him king. (Are you cribbing here from fundamentalist sources?)
That's correct but that would ask for ultra accuracy from "Daniel". It is a small error to see that Belshazzar as king, because he was asked by his father, the true king (but taking early retirement?) to act like one.
The same for some gospel author(s) calling Herod Antipas king (he was only a tetrarch). Both Antipas & Belshazzar had an army under their command. That goes a long way towards kingship.
After "Darius the Mede" in 11:1, three more kings of Persia and then a fourth when Greece is stirred against this latter. That clearly indicates from "Darius the Mede" to Alexander there were four kings. It is blatantly wrong. There is no wiggle room. There were only four Persian kings.
I don't agree. "Daniel" did not say "there was only four Persian kings". I cannot imagine the Jews around 167 BC having a 192 years historical blank. More so, when at the same time, Jesus son of Sirach knew about Nehemiah whose book (or 2 Esdras) features Artaxerxes as a king coming after Darius I.
Three historical blunders and no historical bullseyes. Given a chance second Daniel cannot be expected to be accurate at all outside the writers' lifetimes.
I don't see three blunders. One tiny error about Belshazzar as king, Darius the Mede is probably an attempt at homogenization with Daniel part 1 and "Daniel" did not say there were only four Persian kings.
Actually, Daniel part 2 is very accurate and detailed from Alexander the Great up to 164 BC, most of that period being beyond the author's lifetime.
Your eyes are shut. There are only 37 sevens. The rest is of your fabrication. Let's stick to the 70 weeks, for that's the transparent reading of שבעים שבעים, seven weeks שבעים שבעה, given Lev 12:5, and one week שבוע אחד is transparent: week = שבוע and seven = שבע. That is the last of the שבעים, so שבוע and שבעים are the same semantic content, just singular and plural
How many times I explained that? I lost count. And your reading is a lot less than transparent.
What is counted is the number of occurrences of these three consecutive Hebrews letters: שבע (seven), in a series a numbers (one, two, three, etc.) (one unit per year), up to I reach 70 occurrences of שבע. When it is reached, I look at the corresponding number of years (in that case 372), and I subtract it from the year of Cyrus' decree and I get 167 BC.
Yet half a week is 3½ time units and in visions it is frequent to find one idea being used as a proxy for another, so week could mean something else in a vision. Would you say the weeks vision was in reality spanned by approximately 490 days, שבעים שבעים? If you are to be consistent in your language usage, shouldn't that be your contention? But according to your schema, the sevenieth "seven" or last of what is counted is the year 167 BCE. So far your sevens have indicated specific years. That should mean that the last half a week is in reality half a year. But no! The last week is an ordinary week. You can't see the inconsistency.
I do not think "Daniel" was consistent with his week(s): שבעים שבע . In 10:2 & 3, he used the form שבעים for the plural of weeks (with weeks really meaning weeks). So he used the same form as for "two weeks" (in Lev 12:5) and "seventy" and I would say for me "sevens". Very confusing. Anyway, "Daniel" used שבע as really meaning week (seven days).
Your reading of 9:27 seems not to have any basis. How long did Antiochus "make sacrifice and offering cease"? A week? A brief ban? I do not think so. The text says "for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease". History says that the cessation was about 3½ years, but in this case you contend that a week is a week, so 3½ days.
The half week is between when Antiochus confirmed his covenant and he ended Jewish sacrifices at the temple:
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ..." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
It is very clear.
The text does not say "for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease"
(I don't know which translation you are depending on for your literal understanding. If it talks about the stoppage in the middle of the week—as the KJV does—, that week ends with the end of Antiochus.)
Now you know, I am depending on the RSV translation. But many others are similar.

About "sevens" in Daniel 9:24,25,26 : It is the NKJV alternative translation for "weeks" and the main translation in the NIV. "units of seven" is the alternative translation in the NASB.
It is also the alternative translation in the NET Bible which says: tn Heb “sevens.” Elsewhere the term is used of a literal week (a period of seven days), cf. Gen 29:27-28; Exod 34:22; Lev 12:5; Num 28:26; Deut 16:9-10; 2 Chr 8:13; Jer 5:24; Dan 10:2-3. Gabriel unfolds the future as if it were a calendar of successive weeks. Most understand the reference here as periods of seventy “sevens” of years, or a total of 490 years."

So I got some company with my "sevens".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
spin wrote:Thanks for that sage advice, Neil.
neilgodfrey wrote:Anything to help end the interminable war between the big-enders and the little-enders.
spin wrote:But Neil, what do posterior dimensions have to do with the discussion?
Swift's point: Everything, yet nothing. Each time tweedledum makes a point it is so damn predictable to the spectator how tweedledee will respond. Neither contestant has any interest in addressing the fundamentals of the position of the other. That would be too much work, too laborious, too boring. What's happening now is much more fun.
This is not a new discussion on the subject, Neil. The discussion has been on and off for over a decade. Your limited perception of the process does not reflect it. Your droll analogies with Alice in Wonderland and minor chip technology complexities are your chiffon contribution to the fun.
It certainly reads like a very old merry-go-round discussion -- as you say -- and your confession that it is not new only underscores the problem that strikes me most as I skim the exchange.

My point really is banal. In order to make genuine progress in a discussion such as this one needs to be able to identify and re-state the other's primary argument and foundational assumptions. That's what's missing here.

I suspect neither you nor Bernard would be capable of presenting each other's cases -- and if neither of you can do that then it stands to reason that the sparring between the two of you will continue to be on and off over more decades.

Btw, I thought you would recognise a fairly standard Swift satirical allusion. Alice in Wonderland and chip technology are nowhere on my radar (I don't even know what terminology I have used relates to either of those, sorry).

But you are having fun and that's the main thing.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:What one sees here is primarily a sparring between two opposing attitudes; the specific points made are merely the weapons of choice. I happen to be old fashioned enough to think that until one can present an argument in its strongest possible form then one is not really in a position to engage with it seriously. I suspect neither side has the ability at this point of the game to present the argument of the other -- I suspect neither really knows where the other is coming from.
And I suspect you should be wasting your talents on threads in which you are up to the topic. My basic position in this thread is little different from current scholarship on Daniel's visions. You have no vantage point from which to make judgments. Your perception of the discussion is at best superficial and that's fine—it isn't one of your topics—so knock of the grandstand commentary and get back to your stuff.
You have the advantage intellectually, spin. Of course I recognize your arguments as the conventional wisdom but you have missed my point entirely -- just as you tend to do with certain people who get your goat. Your arguments are certainly "correct", but you are missing the point. Just being "correct" is making no progress whatever with Bernard and never will. If you want to make progress then you need to understand Bernard's position and assumptions as well as your own -- so you know where to hit the nerve.

Being superciliously disdainful in tone with a stubborn believer in/advocate of an idiosyncratic position simply throws away your intellectual advantage. Hence the decade long trek.

But hey, this is not a private forum so I felt I could drop in my "sage advice" to two people whose horns are clearly locked. If you don't want grandstand commentary on a public discussion then I suggest you take it into a private exchange.

But I am glad I have given you more opportunities to have some fun by taking shots at an innocent bystander expressing his observation on the debate.

Added later....

Are you the Ian Hutchesson responsible for a webpage on matters related to DSS and events related to Daniel prophecies? If so -- you should be flattered to hear those pages inspired me to take up some more in depth studies on those topics. I used to think you were very smart, and I still do. I think you would be even better if you took just a little more effort to figure out where others who sort of "irritate"(?) you are coming from.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

My biggest problem, and the strongest argument in favor of spin's theory, is an athnach (causing a disjunction) in the masoretic text between seven weeks/sevens and seventy-two weeks/sevens in Daniel 9:25.
My main argument is it does not show in the LXX. Here, instead of any disjunction, we have a 'kai' (and).
On this website, although Christian, I found that other argument, which certainly looks well evidenced:
...Syntactical clauses are treated in the same way, and subject, object, etc. are cut in two -- or members that belong together, separated -- by the dichotomy. (A logical pause may occur in the verse or not.) (William Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one So-called Prose Books of the Old Testament - Oxford, 1887)

Wickes cites several examples of this phenomenon (Ge 7:13, 25:20, Ex 35:23, Lev 16:2, Isa 49:21; 66:19) but the most relevant passage he cites is Nu 28:19: "And ye shall offer a burn-offering unto Jehovah, two young bullocks and one ram,|[=an athnach] and seven he-lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish." In this verse one sees no logical reason for the athnach there. Third, to place a break between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks is foreign to the context and makes no sense. (Hengstenberg, III, 123; Young, Daniel, p. 205). This means that it took 434 years to build the plaza and moat, which does not fit historically nor what was intended by Daniel in the context. In conclusion, then, the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks need to be considered cumulative or continuous and not parallel or contemporaneous.

Also:
Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch remark that the atnach does not always separate clauses, but frequently also shows only the point of rest within a clause; besides, it first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee for its correctness.
(my bolding) (from http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_925)

According to what I bolded last, the original Hebrew text did not have an atnach.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
You seem to forget that I talked about Zerubbabel going missing in Zech 6, when I first mentioned the issue, based on the fact that the narrative gives Yeshua alone receiving the coronation, Zerubbabel notably absent. I also indicated that he was present earlier in Zechariah, citing the two messiahs. I have also said that no other person of significance is mentioned in Zech 6. You are not saying anything here that I haven't already dealt with. There is no-one other than Yeshua at the coronation, he receives the crowns, not one, and the text does not allow you to change the subject. The context necessitates that Yeshua was enthroned and given rule.
So Zerubbabel is not in Zech 6. So what? Yeshua was enthroned and given rule? No text puts that Yeshua as a ruler. Later (2 verses after Yeshua received the crowns), these crowns are allocated:
"And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD." (Zec 6:14)
So you accept that it has nothing to do with Zerubbabel given his lack of presence, but you want to whinge about who looks after the crowns.
Bernard Muller wrote:For a recap, here are the two preceding verses (Zec 6:12-13)
"and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.
It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both."'


But who is that man called Branch who will rebuild the temple? The answer is in Zec 4:9:
"The hands of Zerub'babel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you."
Still beating yourself because you can't get Zerubbabel into Zech 6.
Bernard Muller wrote:What about the name Branch?
Likely coming from 'Jeremiah', a book that "Daniel" knew about (Dan 9:2):
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land" (Jer 23:5)
and
"In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." (Jer 33:15)

A branch from David? Zerubbabel was a descendant of David (1Ch 3:19) but Yeshua was not.
Still nothing. As you can't put Zerubbabel into the discourse of Zech 6, you don't get anywhere. There is a scholarly body of work that deals with the disappearance of Zerubbabel. You're trying to reinvent the wheel because of your prior commitments. Enjoy.
Bernard Muller wrote:
And what is a sabbath of years? We know that seven sabbaths of years is forty-nine years. Yes, a sabbath of years is a group of seven years. Gosh.
Yes, except that "Daniel" did not use "Sabbath" and specify "of years". "of years" in 'Daniel" is just imagined (by many, I have to say). And "weeks" not a sure thing because it brings the seventy weeks of years 112 years farther than it should. It is what you call inaccuracy.
I guess there were only four kings in the Persian empire.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yes, it seems to be dual in Hebrew; that does not change the fact that the masculine indicates a week
The masculine plural indicates (normally) two weeks.
Don't crap. Check the pointing of the Masoretic text. It's not a plural, but a dual, so no, the masculine plural does not indicate two weeks. The dual form does.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Lester Grabbe states that it was—in the generation prior to his writing—"a considerable consensus that 1 Esdras preceded Ezra–Nehemiah."
If it is so, then 1 Esdras also has what is in Esdras, that is the mention of Artaxerxes as a Persian king coming after Darius, and Zerubbabel in Jerusalem soon after Cyrus' decree and at least up to the completion of the temple.
Yes, I cannot prove that "Daniel" knew 1 Esdras, but it is likely "Daniel" did, just as he knew about 'Jeremiah'.
The comparison is dysfunctional: we know Jeremiah existed and Daniel refers to it. You have no luck with Ezra, sorry.
Bernard Muller wrote:And Jesus Son of Sirach (who wrote at about the same time than Daniel part 2) knew about Nehemiah (from 'Nehemiah or 2 Esdras), both books mentioning Artaxerxes as a Persian king coming after Darius I.
Yes, I said Ben Sira knew about Nehemiah. Josephus did too, just not the canonical book. He evinces something called the Nehemiah Memoir.
Bernard Muller wrote:
We call that "regency". He was never king, just had the proxy to wield power. It is historical error to call him king. (Are you cribbing here from fundamentalist sources?)
That's correct but that would ask for ultra accuracy from "Daniel".
That Daniel wrongly calls Belshazzar a king? Oh, I see. You have to downplay the blunder, because you are trying to sell the story that Daniel's seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. Hence...
Bernard Muller wrote:It is a small error to see that Belshazzar as king, because he was asked by his father, the true king (but taking early retirement?) to act like one.
The same for some gospel author(s) calling Herod Antipas king (he was only a tetrarch). Both Antipas & Belshazzar had an army under their command. That goes a long way towards kingship.
Once again, nothing here. Daniel part 2 was really accurate!?
Bernard Muller wrote:
After "Darius the Mede" in 11:1, three more kings of Persia and then a fourth when Greece is stirred against this latter. That clearly indicates from "Darius the Mede" to Alexander there were four kings. It is blatantly wrong. There is no wiggle room. There were only four Persian kings.
I don't agree. "Daniel" did not say "there was only four Persian kings".
Daniel didn't say there were only seventy weeks or sevens or whatever.
Bernard Muller wrote:I cannot imagine the Jews around 167 BC having a 192 years historical blank.
I'm glad we are not dependent on your imagination. The evidence disagrees with you. Four kings after "Darius the Mede". You don't like what the text says so you manipulate it just like the fundy does.
Bernard Muller wrote:More so, when at the same time, Jesus son of Sirach knew about Nehemiah whose book (or 2 Esdras) features Artaxerxes as a king coming after Darius I.
Did the Nehemiah Memoir mention Artaxerxes? Josephus, who uses it (not the canonical text), puts Nehemiah in the reign of a Xerxes (11.159).
Bernard Muller wrote:
Three historical blunders and no historical bullseyes. Given a chance second Daniel cannot be expected to be accurate at all outside the writers' lifetimes.
I don't see three blunders. One tiny error about Belshazzar as king, Darius the Mede is probably an attempt at homogenization with Daniel part 1 and "Daniel" did not say there were only four Persian kings.
Three blunders and you are hypocritically trying to bolster the text's accuracy and to cover the blunders up because of your personal commitment to a silly idea, rather than get to what the text actually says. Pleading that because the text didn't say "only" four kings the writers must have known of more is a paltry defense that allows you to manipulate almost any text for your desired ends, by judicious placement of an "only". Jesus doesn't have only twelve apostles. They didn't pay Judas only thirty pieces of silver. If you put aside what the narrative literally says you can bend it to your will.

But the text says after "Darius the Mede" there were three more kings and a fourth when Alexander came along. To most competent readers that means that there were four and only four kings between.
Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, Daniel part 2 is very accurate and detailed from Alexander the Great up to 164 BC, most of that period being beyond the author's lifetime.
I've already said a number of times that the text becomes more accurate the closer it comes to the time period under consideration. You turn a blind eye to the earlier period because it is obviously inaccurate. You don't expect such a text to have an accurate understanding of times over a century earlier. This realization is what kickstarted Greek historiography. You talk about what you can investigate and uncover. That's what Herodotus tried to do. Thucydides did better because of Herodotus's example. You expect too much of these people writing in the 160s BCE. The accuracy of the first hundred years of Greek rule is condensed into 5 verses, 11:4-9. The next sixty from Antiochus III to Antiochus IV is at least twenty-seven verses. You are simply deluding yourself if you think that the Jews were able to produce highly accurate historical narratives for periods outside the times they and their living predecessors could speak personally about. Only the last sixty years of Dan 11 can be considered accurate, the early part of the Greek is sparse and the Persian is to them arcane. You want something from the text that historians know you can't get.

The seventy sevens theory that you have been touting is gullible in its hopefulness for accuracy.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Your eyes are shut. There are only 37 sevens. The rest is of your fabrication. Let's stick to the 70 weeks, for that's the transparent reading of שבעים שבעים, seven weeks שבעים שבעה, given Lev 12:5, and one week שבוע אחד is transparent: week = שבוע and seven = שבע. That is the last of the שבעים, so שבוע and שבעים are the same semantic content, just singular and plural
How many times I explained that? I lost count. And your reading is a lot less than transparent.
What is counted is the number of occurrences of these three consecutive Hebrews letters: שבע (seven), in a series a numbers (one, two, three, etc.) (one unit per year), up to I reach 70 occurrences of שבע.
This assertion specified in such a ridiculous way—and you would probably think so if you weren't stuck with the nonsense in the first place—has no way to verify it or falsify it. It is as valuable as many scientific theories such as aether in the decades before it was shot down or a geocentric universe which lasted many centuries. An explanation needs to show how you can know it: you can't just assert it.

They just count the three letters שבע, so you do fancy them writing all this down like your spreadsheet, but instead of numerals, they wrote letters, so what, you imagine that they wrote out a table like yours with words instead of numbers?? It wouldn't fit on the widest scroll from the DSS. Perhaps they wrote it out as a (single column) list, maybe? No? Perhaps someone counted the numbers out aloud and another marked each seven... that wouldn't work, would it? They are pronounced differently, having different vowels. You can't imagine why your theory looks silly to some others.
Bernard Muller wrote:When it is reached, I look at the corresponding number of years (in that case 372), and I subtract it from the year of Cyrus' decree and I get 167 BC.
In this situation no-one is interested in what you did. It is what they did that matters and you don't know. You assert a wacky approach that you claim they must have used because, well, they were ultra-accurate.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yet half a week is 3½ time units and in visions it is frequent to find one idea being used as a proxy for another, so week could mean something else in a vision. Would you say the weeks vision was in reality spanned by approximately 490 days, שבעים שבעים? If you are to be consistent in your language usage, shouldn't that be your contention? But according to your schema, the sevenieth "seven" or last of what is counted is the year 167 BCE. So far your sevens have indicated specific years. That should mean that the last half a week is in reality half a year. But no! The last week is an ordinary week. You can't see the inconsistency.
I do not think "Daniel" was consistent with his week(s): שבעים שבע . In 10:2 & 3, he used the form שבעים for the plural of weeks (with weeks really meaning weeks).
Not relevant here: it doesn't concern a vision. Words have a life to be discerned within the vision, not without.
Bernard Muller wrote:So he used the same form as for "two weeks" (in Lev 12:5) and "seventy" and I would say for me "sevens". Very confusing. Anyway, "Daniel" used שבע as really meaning week (seven days).
But if you want to claim a real week, then you only have sixty-nine sevens mentioned in the vision, plus a week. Where is the seventieth? Do you really want to try to have it both ways??
Bernard Muller wrote:
Your reading of 9:27 seems not to have any basis. How long did Antiochus "make sacrifice and offering cease"? A week? A brief ban? I do not think so. The text says"for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease. History says that the cessation was about 3½ years, but in this case you contend that a week is a week, so 3½ days.
The half week is between when Antiochus confirmed his covenant and he ended Jewish sacrifices at the temple:
The text says that it was a week. When was that week for the covenant with the many? Or had he made a covenant back in 171 BCE when he appointed Menelaus because of a better offer?

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ..." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
It is very clear.[/quote]
No it is not. The word for "midst" in Hebrew principally means "half": press the number above the word "middle" here and scroll down to the BDB Hebrew entry. the Tamid ceased half a week and stayed ceased "until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator." Working from 168/7 when the burnt offering was stopped until Antiochus received his end, we have, umm, well, let's see, gosh, could it be?, ahh, three and a half years.

You may be interested in the New JPS translation:
For half a week he shall put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering.

There is no "for" in Hebrew, just the length of time. So not "for one week", just "one week", not "half a week". We usually need it in English for clarity.
Bernard Muller wrote:The text does not say "for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease"
You are in no position to make any claim about what the text says or does not say, only what the translator says it might have said. On what grounds do you say what is not the text?
Bernard Muller wrote:
(I don't know which translation you are depending on for your literal understanding. If it talks about the stoppage in the middle of the week—as the KJV does—, that week ends with the end of Antiochus.)
Now you know, I am depending on the RSV translation. But many others are similar.

About "sevens" in Daniel 9:24,25,26 : It is the NKJV alternative translation for "weeks" and the main translation in the NIV. "units of seven" is the alternative translation in the NASB.
It is also the alternative translation in the NET Bible which says: tn Heb “sevens.” Elsewhere the term is used of a literal week (a period of seven days), cf. Gen 29:27-28; Exod 34:22; Lev 12:5; Num 28:26; Deut 16:9-10; 2 Chr 8:13; Jer 5:24; Dan 10:2-3. Gabriel unfolds the future as if it were a calendar of successive weeks. Most understand the reference here as periods of seventy “sevens” of years, or a total of 490 years."

So I got some company with my "sevens".
Well, you have got thirty-seven of them, haven't you?

In looking at 9:27 I noticed this:
He will make a binding covenant with many for one week,
and for half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings.(ISV)

Do you see how the duration in the first clause is at the end and in the second at the beginning? This is a similar structure to the one seen in 9:25. It shows you that the christianizing approach of separating the second duration from the following doesn't reflect Hebrew discourse. (The difference that the second duration is part of the first doesn't change the discourse structure.)

Once again:
  1. You still have only 37 "sevens". You have to move the goalposts to include the "seventies" in your chart to get seventy somethings.
  2. If the last week is only a week, it does not reflect a year to be counted in your year list, so you only have 69 years that have seven or seventy. (So the theory crashed on two counts.)
  3. There are two different figures in 9:25-26, reflecting different time periods: a) Yeshua ben Yehozedek who was present at the building of the temple and b) Onias III, present when Antiochus IV came to the thrown, but later removed. (I truly can't believe your rearguard efforts in Zech 6.)
  4. All the durations in Daniel's visions, including the second half of the week in 9:27, start with the cessation of the Tamid. They are all more or less three and a half years. This underlines the fact that the principal parts of the four visions deal with the same events and feature the same people. The prince of the covenant [11:22] is the prince of the host [8:11] and the anointed one [9:25].
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:
spin wrote:Thanks for that sage advice, Neil.
neilgodfrey wrote:Anything to help end the interminable war between the big-enders and the little-enders.
spin wrote:But Neil, what do posterior dimensions have to do with the discussion?
Swift's point: Everything, yet nothing. Each time tweedledum makes a point it is so damn predictable to the spectator how tweedledee will respond. Neither contestant has any interest in addressing the fundamentals of the position of the other. That would be too much work, too laborious, too boring. What's happening now is much more fun.
spin wrote:This is not a new discussion on the subject, Neil. The discussion has been on and off for over a decade. Your limited perception of the process does not reflect it. Your droll analogies with Alice in Wonderland and minor chip technology complexities are your chiffon contribution to the fun.
It certainly reads like a very old merry-go-round discussion -- as you say -- and your confession that it is not new only underscores the problem that strikes me most as I skim the exchange.

My point really is banal. In order to make genuine progress in a discussion such as this one needs to be able to identify and re-state the other's primary argument and foundational assumptions. That's what's missing here.
I know Bernard's arguments, his methods, his disinterest in scholarship, his desire to tout his idiosyncratic conclusions, his desire that they be right despite their idiosyncrasy and lack of falsifiability (in this case).
neilgodfrey wrote:I suspect neither you nor Bernard would be capable of presenting each other's cases -- and if neither of you can do that then it stands to reason that the sparring between the two of you will continue to be on and off over more decades.
I don't think you should change your career to become a detective.
neilgodfrey wrote:Btw, I thought you would recognise a fairly standard Swift satirical allusion.
Remember you referencing Swift, didn't note the allusion.
neilgodfrey wrote:Alice in Wonderland (Tweedledee & Tweedledum) and chip technology (big-endian & little-endian) are nowhere on my radar (I don't even know what terminology I have used relates to either of those, sorry).
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:
spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:What one sees here is primarily a sparring between two opposing attitudes; the specific points made are merely the weapons of choice. I happen to be old fashioned enough to think that until one can present an argument in its strongest possible form then one is not really in a position to engage with it seriously. I suspect neither side has the ability at this point of the game to present the argument of the other -- I suspect neither really knows where the other is coming from.
And I suspect you should be wasting your talents on threads in which you are up to the topic. My basic position in this thread is little different from current scholarship on Daniel's visions. You have no vantage point from which to make judgments. Your perception of the discussion is at best superficial and that's fine—it isn't one of your topics—so knock of the grandstand commentary and get back to your stuff.
You have the advantage intellectually, spin. Of course I recognize your arguments as the conventional wisdom but you have missed my point entirely -- just as you tend to do with certain people who get your goat. Your arguments are certainly "correct", but you are missing the point. Just being "correct" is making no progress whatever with Bernard and never will. If you want to make progress then you need to understand Bernard's position and assumptions as well as your own -- so you know where to hit the nerve.

Being superciliously disdainful in tone with a stubborn believer in/advocate of an idiosyncratic position simply throws away your intellectual advantage. Hence the decade long trek.

But hey, this is not a private forum so I felt I could drop in my "sage advice" to two people whose horns are clearly locked. If you don't want grandstand commentary on a public discussion then I suggest you take it into a private exchange.
You gave your advice, but stuck around to be a "rider in the stand", someone who can win a race and knows better than the jockey, while watching from the sidelines. (Will this allusion escape you? Use the plural.)
neilgodfrey wrote:But I am glad I have given you more opportunities to have some fun by taking shots at an innocent bystander expressing his observation on the debate.

Added later....

Are you the Ian Hutchesson responsible for a webpage on matters related to DSS and events related to Daniel prophecies?
No. I guess I'm not the only one interested in Daniel.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

oh spin, you are so easily riled -- a trait too commonly found among those who love to use insulting, sarcastic and demeaning language to refer to their opponents and their arguments.

You say you know B's arguments but you avoid my point about the exchange, of course. Your points fail to anticipate his replies at every turn -- just as his do yours. Both parties would do well to step back and ask why.

But B does have one quality you lack .... re-read the first sentence.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply