Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Kris
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by Kris »

This is interesting that you are indicating that the Artaxerxes being mentioned is II and not I as the christian websites posit. I had not heard of this, but certainly like it as a theory because it makes their version lose credibility. I will read a bit of Ezra to try to see what you are saying.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by DCHindley »

Kris wrote:How might this [recent Christian interpretation so Dan 9 refers to Jesus Christ] be debunked for the interpretation of 165bc?
Yes there is. First, there are hundreds of Christian interpretations of the 9th chapter of Daniel, including a half dozen or so from the church fathers, mainly late 2nd century CE onwards. All of them interpret the "anointed one" (or Christ/Messiah, depending on translation) as Jesus Christ. The main problem is that "christos" and cognate words in Greek mean "anointed one," and from the Persian period onwards until Hasmonean times referred only to the High Priest on his ordination. Previous to and from Hasmonean times it could also refer to the anointing of a king upon his installation. In Deutero Isaiah 45:1, probably written in the time of Cyrus the Great, even applies the term to Cyrus himself (as someone dedicated to a role by God, and must be taken figuratively). Early Christian interpretations are almost always dependent upon a Greek translation of Daniel, usually that made by Theodotion, but sometimes the "Old Greek" translation that Theodotion's translation replaced in Christian use. Fortunately, Theodotion's translation is supposed to represent the underlying Hebrew text very literally.

Some while back it occurred to me that "70" weeks (assumed to mean "week-years" or 7 year segments of time) is meant to be interpreted cryptically, and may not refer to a literal 490 year period of time. The numbers of weeks mentioned are 7, 62 and 1, which if added together total 70.

What if the primary period were 62 year-weeks? The phrase "70 weeks" is actually introduced by Jeremiah 29:10. This passage itself is not dated but immediately follows one dated to the year 597/596 BCE. If this is taken as the inception date for the cryptic period, 62 week-years would end 164/163 BCE.

The 7 year-week period would then represent the initial 49 years, to 548 BCE, which is exactly when Cyrus had conquered the other contenders for regional dominance, and was preparing to conquer Babylon. Thus, the "anointed one" of Daniel 9:25 could be taken as Cyrus.

The 1 year-week period, if taken as being the final 7 years at the end of the 62 year-week main period, would roughly correspond to the period 171 BCE to 164 BCE. This is exactly when the high priests began to Hellenize (appointment of Menelaus, also murder of deposed HP Onias III at order of Menelaus), the desecration of the alter (Dec 6, 167 BCE), and the rebellion of Judas Maccabee and his rededication of the temple (Dec 14, 164 BCE).
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city:
to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal both vision and prophet,
and to anoint a most holy place.
25a Know therefore and understand:
25b from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Jer 29:10, ca. 597 BCE) until the time of an anointed prince (Cyrus, as in Isa 25:1), there shall be seven weeks (49 yrs, making this ca 548 BCE);
25c and for sixty-two weeks (starting in 597 BCE) it (Jerusalem) shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
26a After the sixty-two weeks (ca. 597 - 434 = ca. 163 BCE), an anointed one (Menelaus) shall be cut off and shall have nothing,
26b and the troops of the prince who is to come (Antiochus IV) shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (ca 169-168 BCE). Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27a He (Antiochus IV) shall make a strong covenant with many for one week (ca 171 BCE with the appointment of Menelaus, to ca. 164 BCE when Judas displaced him for a high priest of his choosing),
27b and for half of the week (6 Dec 167 BCE, or earlier, to 13 Dec 164 BCE, not exactly 3.5 years but just over 3 years) he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator (Judas' defeat of Antiochus' forces which resulted in the rededication of the temple, 14 Dec 164 BCE)."
DCH, oops! Mr Scowling Waggyfinger (composed early this morning but sent during the morning union mandated 15 minute break, sir)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote:... The main problem is that "christos" and cognate words in Greek mean "anointed one," and from the Persian period onwards until Hasmonean times referred only to the High Priest on his ordination. Previous to and from Hasmonean times it could also refer to the anointing of a king upon his installation.
another variation sometimes (or occasionally) often meant "good", or 'slave' or 'good slave'.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by ficino »

MrMacSon wrote:
DCHindley wrote:... The main problem is that "christos" and cognate words in Greek mean "anointed one," and from the Persian period onwards until Hasmonean times referred only to the High Priest on his ordination. Previous to and from Hasmonean times it could also refer to the anointing of a king upon his installation.
another variation sometimes (or occasionally) often meant "good", or 'slave' or 'good slave'.
I believe there you're thinking of Chrestos, Χρηστός, no? It could sound like Christos, since iota and eta came to sound alike in Greek.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by DCHindley »

ficino wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
DCHindley wrote:... The main problem is that "christos" and cognate words in Greek mean "anointed one," and from the Persian period onwards until Hasmonean times referred only to the High Priest on his ordination. Previous to and from Hasmonean times it could also refer to the anointing of a king upon his installation.
another variation sometimes (or occasionally) often meant "good", or 'slave' or 'good slave'.
I believe there you're thinking of Chrestos, Χρηστός, no? It could sound like Christos, since iota and eta came to sound alike in Greek.
Christos = anointed. Chrestos = "good," or "useful." It was Dan Mahar, in the pdf of his English Translation of Marcion's Galatians, available from Detering's site, who said:
One such creative liberty is the name for the Marcionite Savior, "Isu Chrestos" - "Isu" derived on the designation of Syrian Marcionites, the spelling for "Chrestos" (= the Good one) derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue.
The inscription, which is dated, says "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba [near Damascus], of the Lord and Saviour IS (the) Good - Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630" of the Seleucid era (318 CE). The arch is believed to be the oldest church of any kind discovered to date.

Marcionites believed that Jesus was a manifestation of a good, previously unrevealed, God who was not the same as the just God of the Jews who had fashioned the world as we know it out of preexisting chaotic matter. As the son of the Good God, Jesus was also "good".

"Mahar's "Isu" is his own invention, as the word for Jesus had been abbreviated in the inscription. He thought that it would correspond to the Syriac name Isu, known from the 4th century work Dialogue on the true faith in God, usually ascribed to its main character, Adamantius, but the inscription is in Greek so it actually suggests no such thing. It would have to have been inscribed in Aramaic before I'd go for an interpretation like that.

Besides a very few cases where NT mss have chrestos as a variant of christos, the only other case is the Roman writer Suetonius who said that Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius around 49 CE "because they were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chresto."

Per Wiki, which cites J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, Liber Annuus 61 (2011), ISSN 0081-8933, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 2012, p. 375 f., the exact phrase is "Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit," from Divus Claudius chapter 25 section 4.

Per the Persius site, "Chresto" derives from either the Genitive or Dative form of either

1) Chrestus , i, m.
I. [select] A mutilated form for Christus, Lact. 4, 7, 5; hence, Chrestiani, instead of Christiani, was used by many; cf. Tert. Apol. 3 fin.—
II. [select] A Jew at Rome under the emperor Claudius, Suet. Claud. 15; v. the commentt. in h. l.—
III. [select] A slave or freedman of Cicero, Cic. Fam. 2, 8, 1.

OR

chreston , i, n., = χρηστόν (useful),
I. [select] a name by which the plant cichorium was sometimes called, Plin. 20, 30.

"In addition to these qualities [of chicory], the magicians (Magi) state that persons who rub themselves with the juice of the entire plant, mixed with oil, are sure to find more favour with others, and to obtain with greater facility anything they may desire. This plant, in consequence of its numerous salutary virtues, has been called by some persons "chreston," (useful) and "pancration" (The all-powerful") by others.

If you ask me, some Jews of Rome were smearing themselves with chreston (extract of chicory/endive) as part of magical preparations or incantations. The fact that "chreston" is associated with Magi (serious magicians believed to be able to control demons in that era) suggests that these disturbances had nothing at all to do with Jesus Christ, but with what Romans might consider "black magic." Hence the banishment.

Mr. Scowling Waggyfinger
jbejon
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by jbejon »

[quote]I sure hope you can help me. One thing that I seemed to find solace in was that Daniel appeared to be written about the Maccabeean times, and that it really did not apply to our day, or even to Jesus...[/quote]

Hi Kris!

I'm completely new to these boards but was interested in your post as I've been spending some time studying the Book of Daniel recently. For what it's worth, I think the Maccabean view of the Book is really quite problematic. Its four kingdom schema (Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece) doesn't, in my view, square with the facts of history, much less with the text of Daniel's visions. (Also, the Book has a much more pacifistic tone than might be expected from a Maccabean author. It's more of a call to passive resistance than a call to arms.)

Anyway, I reckon the more commonly-held Christian views are worthy of more consideration than you seem to want to give them. On a separate note, I don't believe that God wants us to be scared by the idea of the end-times. It may be that you've heard some non-ideal preaching, but you shouldn't let that colour your interpretation of Scripture. God will keep all those who trust him safe somehow.

Well, I don't know if any of that's helpful. Hopefully…

James.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by spin »

jbejon wrote:
Kris wrote:I sure hope you can help me. One thing that I seemed to find solace in was that Daniel appeared to be written about the Maccabeean times, and that it really did not apply to our day, or even to Jesus...
Hi Kris!

I'm completely new to these boards but was interested in your post as I've been spending some time studying the Book of Daniel recently. For what it's worth, I think the Maccabean view of the Book is really quite problematic. Its four kingdom schema (Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece) doesn't, in my view, square with the facts of history, much less with the text of Daniel's visions. (Also, the Book has a much more pacifistic tone than might be expected from a Maccabean author. It's more of a call to passive resistance than a call to arms.)

Anyway, I reckon the more commonly-held Christian views are worthy of more consideration than you seem to want to give them. On a separate note, I don't believe that God wants us to be scared by the idea of the end-times. It may be that you've heard some non-ideal preaching, but you shouldn't let that colour your interpretation of Scripture. God will keep all those who trust him safe somehow.
When you make comments here, it's always best to defend them, making it clear what you are saying and why (in the sense of what evidence leads you to your conclusions). There is nothing to explain your reasoning. If the four kingdom schema [Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece] is problematical to you, you need to show what exactly is the problem. Saying it "doesn't, in [your] view, square with the facts of history", is simply rejected as it is nothing more apparently than your untinged opinion to consider.

I'm ready to refute if you gave me some argued position.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
jbejon
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by jbejon »

spin wrote:
jbejon wrote:
Kris wrote:I sure hope you can help me. One thing that I seemed to find solace in was that Daniel appeared to be written about the Maccabeean times, and that it really did not apply to our day, or even to Jesus...
Hi Kris!

I'm completely new to these boards but was interested in your post as I've been spending some time studying the Book of Daniel recently. For what it's worth, I think the Maccabean view of the Book is really quite problematic. Its four kingdom schema (Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece) doesn't, in my view, square with the facts of history, much less with the text of Daniel's visions. (Also, the Book has a much more pacifistic tone than might be expected from a Maccabean author. It's more of a call to passive resistance than a call to arms.)

Anyway, I reckon the more commonly-held Christian views are worthy of more consideration than you seem to want to give them. On a separate note, I don't believe that God wants us to be scared by the idea of the end-times. It may be that you've heard some non-ideal preaching, but you shouldn't let that colour your interpretation of Scripture. God will keep all those who trust him safe somehow.
When you make comments here, it's always best to defend them, making it clear what you are saying and why (in the sense of what evidence leads you to your conclusions). There is nothing to explain your reasoning. If the four kingdom schema [Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece] is problematical to you, you need to show what exactly is the problem. Saying it "doesn't, in [your] view, square with the facts of history", is simply rejected as it is nothing more apparently than your untinged opinion to consider.

I'm ready to refute if you gave me some argued position.
Hi spin. Yes, all fair points. (I suppose I'm slightly apprehensive about your comment, "I'm ready to refute if you give me some argued position". The word "refute" seems to presuppose that the relevant arguments are wrong before seeing them, but maybe I'm reading too much into that.) Anyway, I've listed some of the specific arguments I have in the article "Daniel's Date Of Composition", which you can find here if you're interested in looking at/commenting on them: https://kcl.academia.edu/jamesbejon.

James.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by spin »

I don't normally respond to material not posted here, but I will this once. First your twelve reasons why a late date doesn't work for you. (All your comments are in yellow.)

1. The Medes had little if any real contact with the Israelites.

There is no way to test this assertion. Historically as Babylon was crumbling, the Medes, after destroying Assyria, blazed across Mesopotamia then Anatolia—a fact that the Jews couldn't help but note—until they came into contact with the forces of Midas in a famous battle with no winner. Tt is certain that Isaiah prophecied the end of Babylon at the hands of the Medes (13:17).

2. Babylon was overthrown by a Persian rather than a Median king.

While literally true, most of the lifting was done when the Medes had control of the Indo-European group. In fact the book of Daniel states that it was Darius the Mede who received the kingdom (5:31). Accuracy is not necessarily relevant.

3. In 5.28, our author describes an allied force (as opposed to a sole empire) overthrowing Babylon.

There is no real argument here. While it was the Medes who pared Babylon back to little more than a city, history also records that it was in fact the Persians who conquered the city. The separation is quite clear when needed. The Medes led the confederacy of people, until their hegemony was overturned by the Persians.

4. The Colossus’s transition from gold to silver is very difficult to understand in terms of the transition from Babylon to Media.

This again seems to hope that Daniel is historically accurate, yet it is frequently not. You need to deal with what Daniel says, rather than your hope that it is in selective cases historically accurate.

5. Our author repeatedly emphasises how different his four kingdoms are from one another (cf. 7.3, 7.7, 7.19, 7.23), which can hardly be said of Media and Persia.

There is no argument here either. The Medes and the Persians were distinct ruling classes. (We see this sort of thing in history frequently enough when one ruling class supercedes another, eg with the Parthians and the Sassanids, the Merovingians and the Carolingians, the Saxons and the Normans.) You haven't grasped the relationship between the Medes and the Persians at all well, as can be seen in your struggle with later terms such as "sole-Median empire".

This point of yours seems more to be eisegesis.

6. ch. 7’s bear shares important similarities with ch. 8’s ram, which our author explicitly identifies as Medo-Persia.

Another non-argument, a created parallel. You could make a limp and a hunchback similar if you tried.

7. Our author is highly unlikely to have intended his fourth kingdom to depict Greece since it makes a mess of an otherwise very logical prophetic schema.

Here's another dose of eisegesis. You know your conclusion, it seems. Different prophecies use different imagery. You cannot hope to make strict parallels over divergent visions. While they may in part go over the same ground, there is no point that they would be written the same: you'd then only need one. But they look from different perspectives or angles.

To help you understand the four-headed leopard from Daniel's perspective, the Persians only had four kings, three plus a fourth in 11:2. On the other hand the goat which appeared in the west (thus obviously not Persia) had one horn and it grew exceedingly great. Only when that horn was broken did four-horns come up. If we work from the notion that the two horned ram with chronologically one horn first then the second later were first the Medes and then the Persians, we would naturally have Alexander following them, the great horn of the goat, upon whose death the four diadochi took his place (8:22) and struggled for power, until eventually one power became dominant, the Seleucids, out of which Antiochus IV sprung, who grew great toward the south, retaking Egypt, the east, see 1 Mac 3:37, and to the beautiful land of Judea. Much of the material in 8:10ff can be attributed to Antiochus IV. (There is no real conflict for you regarding chapter 8 though as you see them fundamentally as the scholars do, except that you conflate the Medes and the Persians against both biblical and historical indications.)

The fourth beast in Dan 7, which was like an elephant (the Jews didn't have a name for it, but described it enough to get the idea), was introduced into Judea by the Seleucids. It's ten horns are generally considered to be the royal descent from Alexander through the Seleucid line until three were plucked out: Seleucus IV, his son Demetrius, and Heliodorus who usurped the throne in quick succession, only to be replaced by the arrogant (RSV. KJV "speaking great things") horn, Antiochus IV.

8. Our author is highly unlikely to have intended ch. 7’s Anti-God to be identified with ch. 8’s Anti-God since he depicts the figures in very different contexts.

Despite the fact that you admit the numerous similarities you try to create a few dissimilarities:

a) ch. 7’s Anti-God is an eleventh horn who overthrows three other horns; ch. 8’s is a fifth horn who does not overthrow any of his peers.

I have already dealt with these horns and your final statement is an argument from silence which you cannot sustain.

b) ch. 7’s Anti-God is given dominion over God’s people for three-and-a-half years; ch. 8’s is given dominion over God’s people for 2,300 days.

You have misinterpreted the 2300 evenings and mornings. Note "evenings and mornings". There are 1150 of each, which is a little under 3½ years, but then the figure grows to 1290 and finally 1335, as the end of the oppression stretched on past the 3½ years. (This 3½ years is approximately the time from when Antiochus IV polluted the temple till it was rededicated, 7:25b, 8:11-14, 9:27b, 11:31-34.)

c) ch. 7’s Anti-God is said to be judged by fire very dramatically; ch. 8’s is simply said to be
“broken”, just as Alexander the Great was “broken” (cf. 8.8, 8.25).


You should take closer note of 8:25c, in which the last horn "shall be broken, but not by human hands". We are now in the writer's time and he knew that Antiochus IV died of a disease. The different visions told different things but checking 2 Macc 9:11 we find that Antiochus IV was broken (8:25c) in spirit and lost his arrogance (noted in 7:8c).

9. Our author is highly unlikely to have intended his Seventy Weeks to depict the period 605-164 BC since the details of 605-164 BC (which would have been well known to our Maccabean author) simply do not fit the details of the Seventy Week Prophecy.

Given the historical errors found in Daniel, such as a) the reference to Darius the Mede, b) making Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar (eg 5:18), when Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidas and the name was Nebuchadrezzar, c) references to Greek musical instruments in 3:7, d) four kings of the Persians, etc., we would expect the writers not to be well versed in the period in which the book is set. They become far more accurate when dealing with the Greek period, in ch.2 the two legs, and the four visions in chapters 7, 8, 9 and 11.

Chapter 11 supplies so much data that you can clearly name most of the various kings of the north (ie the Seleucids) and the south (the Ptolemies). I'm sure you would dismiss it all, as you've shown little interest in what modern scholars have said about the text in tertiary-level biblical commentaries.)

10. Our author is highly unlikely to have intended 11.40-45 to depict the career of Antiochus since 11.36 breaks off from its immediate context to look beyond Antiochus.

There is nothing to show a change of king in 11:36. There are clear indications of the change in 11:20 & 21. It is worth noting that the mountain behind Antioch was called Tsafon and Baal was referred to as Baal Tsafon ( Baal-zephon). (The word for north is also Tsafon.) Also, Esther Eshel has uncovered a fragment from Qumran, 4Q248 which helps to understand Dan 11:39 as Antiochus IV selling land in Egypt.(The Book of Daniel vol.2, eds. Collins & Flint, Brill 2001, p.389) Antiochus IV is described accurately in 11:21-39, just as Seleucus IV and Heliodorus are clearly though briefly described in 11:20, and Antiochus III in 11:15-19. The accuracy only stopped after 11:39 and that's when the chapter stops being history.

11. Our author is highly unlikely to have intended 11.36-45 to depict the career of Antiochus since it would have been too daring a prediction for him to make.

That is not an argument. It is again your opinion intruding. Besides, 11:36-39 is not prediction, but part of the history and can be identified as such. The break is clearly stated in the text at 11:40, "at the time of the end...".

12. Our author is highly unlikely to have written primarily for a Maccabean audience since his writings focus on passive resistance as opposed to active defiance.

You are working under the assumption that we are dealing with one author. That is baseless. You also assume because the author(s) don't show the resistence as you want, but details the aggression of the king's forces, then there was no resistence. Perhaps you might want to ask why the text might want to diminish the Jewish efforts, rather than more eisegesis.

And on to some hashes...
For some unaccountable reason you go on to make the obviously false claim (#2) that "The Late-Date Hypothesis is so flexible as to be practically unfalsifiable." All you need do for example is to show how the events in chapter 11 up to verse 39 don't reflect the history of the struggle between Syria and Egypt between circa 300 and 164. That should give you a lot of scope for falsifiability.

#3 Properly understood, our author’s Seventy Weeks find a remarkable fulfilment in three important 1st century AD events

I've seent his claim too often and without reason. It simply doesn't work even with the manipulation of 9:25 to add the seven weeks and the 62 weeks, so that you can make the anointed prince be at the end and not as the text shows: after seven weeks. After those 62 weeks we get an anointed one and a prince, ie two separate people, and the anointed prince after the first seven weeks is yet another person (Yeshua son of Yehozedek).

#4 The Late-Date Hypothesis is very difficult to square with what we read in the Apocryphal writings.

Your invention. There is nothing more than an attempt to quibble.

#5 Jesus of Nazareth clearly took Daniel’s prophecies to have a 1st century AD fulfilment.

There is no relevance in this. I guess you are asserting that Jesus had special knowledge hundreds of years after the writing.

#6If 11.36-12.4 was intended to depict the fall of Antiochus and the inauguration of the Messianic Age, then the Maccabean Jews knowingly canonised the writings of a false prophet.

You are working under the false notion that you understand what a Jewish prophet was.

#7 It is very hard to see when our author’s writings could have been completed. Prior to 164 BC, there would have been no time, and, after 164 BC, there would have been no point.

First taking the book as a single author's work leads you to make assumptions that seem unjustified, such as some unity of content. But then, you have the basic idea with 164, not before or after. Well done.

You seem to want to ignore all the scholarly literature written over the last 60 years and concentrate on old authors. You are not up with the latest discussion of the literature. Your arguments are not dealing with the scholarly status quo other than in an early form with latest people apparently of the time of good old HH Rowley. When I see that you have dealt with all the evidence in the literature on say Daniel 11, then you might have some deeper criticism of the scholarly position. But as things stand, your arguments are rarely supported by evidence and reek of bald assertion and eisegesis. You read into the text apparently confessional notions, such as the value of Jesus's view of the book of Daniel. You aren't going to make inroads into the scholarly view continuing as you have.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
jbejon
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

Post by jbejon »

Hi spin.

First off, thanks for taking the time to read what I’ve written and for responding to it. I’ve made a number of notes/changes in response which I’ll write up at some point.

I’m not 100% sure where to go from here. I feel like I’ve already addressed a lot of the points you raise. You say, for instance, of my claim that ch. 7’s bear shares important similarities with ch. 8’s ram, “Another non-argument, a created parallel. You could make a limp and a hunchback similar if you tried”. I do, however, outline exactly what I think the similarities are. I say:
Our author mentions only two ‘lop-sided’ entities in his visions--the bear raised up on one side and the ram with one horn higher than the other. Both of these entities are portrayed as Babylon’s immediate successor--a position which only one kingdom can plausibly occupy (cf. 7.5, 5.28, 8.20). The bear and the ram must therefore depict the selfsame entity, namely Medo-Persia.
Perhaps you don’t find those similarities significant. Fair enough I suppose. But I certainly find them quite striking. Maybe that’s all that can be said in such cases. Perhaps, then, the most constructive thing to do is for me to ask you a few quick questions and then make a quick comment on one of the things which I haven’t touched on yet.

My first question, then. You say that my use of the term “sole-Median” is incorrect. When I say “sole-Median”, I mean, Media prior to 550, when it effectively became a part of the Persia empire. Is “sole-Median” the wrong term for that? Is there a different term I should be using?

Second, you seem to think that I’d want to deny the correlation between 11.2-35’s vision and the tussle between Syria and Egypt. Why do you think that? (Or maybe you don’t; perhaps I’ve just misunderstood you.)

Third, you say of 8.25c, “We are now in the writer’s time and he knew that Antiochus IV died of a disease”. Is that a common view? If so, why do people think that writer didn’t correct 11.40-45’s errors?

As for my comment, then: you’re right, I take ch. 8 to refer to 2,300 days. Here’s my thinking.

If there’s one thing the rather unusual term “evening-morning” (עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר) does, it’s to make a single unit out of an evening and a morning. To separate 2,300 evening-mornings out into 1,150 evenings and 1,150 mornings therefore seems to gloss over the most interesting and distinctive feature of the text. Besides, when the Scriptures refer to days and nights as distinct entities, they invariably repeat the number of days and nights involved--hence, for instance, we read that:

* “the rain fell upon the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights” (cf. Gen. 7.12),
* “Moses entered the midst of the cloud as he went up to the mountain, and Moses was on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights” (cf. Exod. 24.18),
* “[The Egyptian soldier] had not eaten bread or drunk water for 3 days and 3 nights” (cf. 1 Sam. 30.12),
* “[Job's friends] sat down on the ground with him for 7 days and 7 nights” (cf. Job 2.13),
* “Just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth” (cf. Matt. 12.40).

Had Daniel wanted to refer to the passing of 1,150 days, he’s therefore, I think, more likely to have said “1,150 days and 1,150 nights”.

In response, it’s generally argued that Daniel’s evening-mornings allude not to days per se but to the number of evening and morning sacrifices which were missed (cf. Exod. 28, etc.). To my mind, that response doesn’t seem to work for at least a couple of reasons.

First, when Moses uses the term “continual” to refer to the evening and morning sacrifices (he actually uses it to refer to lots of things--e.g., the showbread, the lamp, etc.), he treats the evening and morning sacrifices as a single unit, i.e., as a single “evening-morning” sacrifice--hence:
“This is what you shall offer on the altar: two one-year old lambs each day, continuously. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight… It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations.” (Exod. 29.38-42)
So, even if we take 8.13-14 to refer specifically to sacrifices, we still seem bound to conclude that Daniel's 2,300 evening-mornings refer to 2,300 days rather than 1,150 days.

Second, when the Scriptures refer to the Mosaic evening and morning sacrifices, they refer not to “the evening and the morning” but to “the morning and the evening” (noting the order)--hence:

* “This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD…half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening” (cf. Lev. 6.20)

* “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight” (cf. Num. 28.4),

* “They offer to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt offerings and incense of sweet spices” (cf. 2 Chr. 13.11),

* “They offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, burnt offerings morning and evening” (cf. Ezra 3.3), and so on.

Hopefully that at least outlines my main logic regarding the days.

James.
Post Reply