Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Indeed I should make clear that the root qbl means both 'opposite' and 'receive' in both Aramaic and Syriac. The preceding discussion isn't limited to qbyl. So 'kibla' can mean 'complaint' just as kabala means 'tradition' but they would be spelled identically in either Aramaic or Syriac. So to would the kibleta (antitheses) of Marcion and the kabbalta (traditions) of Marcion would be spelled the same way.

And notice the note at the end of the entry by Jastrow - "only in later Hebrew does it mean mystical lore" http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1310

Secret Alias wrote:And notice the note at the end of the entry by Jastrow - "only in later Hebrew does it mean mystical lore" http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1310

Perhaps because the mystical lore didn't actually exist until later.

And here is a challenge even to my assumptions. If the Imperial authorities were actively reshaping Christianity away from forms of the religion which promoted 'two powers' or perhaps better - a succession of the 'young' Son God against the 'old' Father, if it was really all about the triumph of monarchian forms of the religion which complimented the cult of the Emperor, why do we see both Irenaeus and Adamantius read Daniel 2:34 - 35 in an openly anti-Imperial manner? How could the Imperial government have allowed for the 'religious' encouragement of the destruction of the Empire?

I've always had a problem with Book 5 of Adversus Marcionem. There is a long section where for instance the number of the beast is identified with 'Latins' (spelled strangely admittedly) and where Irenaeus openly discusses the need and hope for the destruction of the Empire. This certainly challenges my own assumptions of direct Imperial 'encouragement' of monarchianism in the religion.

Moreover it is quite apparent that absolute monarchianism actually loses out and becomes a heresy by the third century. The Patripassians apparently literally understood that the Father was crucified on the Cross. These challenges to my assumptions will have to be answered when dealing with the survival of explicitly anti-Roman propaganda in two sources (Adamantius and Irenaeus) when dealing with Daniel 2:34 - 35. Rome is the fourth kingdom:

Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: "And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom." Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time," that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.

Eventually Irenaeus (and more immediately Adamantius) tells us that the fourth kingdom is Rome. But there are also seemingly contradictory passages where Irenaeus tells us that the time he is living is a golden age - the 'favorable year' is the period from the apostolic age to the present (cf. Adv Haer 2.24). Moreover the great number of Christians in the Imperial household is proof of divine favor. How can these two ideas be reconciled (i.e. that Rome is the fourth kingdom of Daniel and the age of Roman dominance is the favorable year of Isaiah)?

I've thought about this long and hard for many years and the only solution to this and many other difficulties with Irenaeus (i.e. that he cites many scriptures in two different forms - for example Mark 1:1) is that 'Irenaeus' was a literary 'sausage,' a historically non-existent person or perhaps a late second century writer who compiled together 'like a sausage' the writings of many different predecessors (i.e. Justin, Theophilus, even possibly Clement of Alexandria). The point then is that the only way I can explain that Daniel 2.34 - 35 is cited in an anti-Roman manner and Isaiah 63:1 and part of an Imperial propaganda effort is that Irenaeus wrote neither text. He just compiled a source like the one behind Adamantius and another together in one text (i.e. Adversus Haereses) or perhaps someone else did so in the third century under the name of 'peaceful (one).'

In that sense then I would assume that Irenaeus's exegesis of Daniel 2:34 - 35 was actually taken over from the Marcionites. The clue here is the strange way that Anastasius of Sinai cites Adamantius's Dialogue as having the Marcionite do all or most of the citing of Daniel:

MEG. The proof that Christ is not the son of the Just God is very clear to me: The Christ of the law has not yet come. If he had what David announced regarding Him would be coming to fulfilment: "Why were nations insolent, and why did peoples think vain thoughts? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ." Again, "Ask of me, and I will give you nations for your inheritance"148, c And following: "Though wilt shepherd them with a rod of iron." This proves that the Christ who has come is someone else, for neither kings nor Christ who has come is someone else, for neither kings nor rulers were against Him, nor were Gentiles ruled with an iron rod.

AD. Those who were supposed to rule and govern in Israel, and who had authority to put to death and to spare, all came against Christ. And that they were ruled with a rod of iron is demonstrated by the prophecy of Daniel: "After the gold, the silver and the brass shall arise a kingdom of iron."150 This has proved to be the Roman power151, d by which those who opposed Christ were ruled. And the Gentiles have been given Him for an inheritance: Concerning this, David says, "O Lord, remember us in favouring They people: visit us in saving Thy nation; [that we may give praise with Thy inheritance"152. It is apparent that this is the inheritance of the Gentiles for which He asked]153.

EUTR. If there had not existed any authority of kings and rulers, how could Christ have been crucified?

MEG. Daniel says, "I saw, and behold, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the image and made it like a cloud of dust, and it was blown away by the wind" The stone was the Kingdom of God, appearing in glory, and the statue was the kingdom on earth. It is proven, then, through the Law and the Prophets, that Christ has not yet come, for if He had there would not be another kingdom on earth as Daniel declared. That all the kingdoms do exist shows that the Christ announced through the Law has not yet arrived.

ADM: What has been reasonably stated in the Scriptures you want to interpret unreasonably. The Prophets and the Gospel plainly speak of two Advents of Christ — the first in humility, and the one after this, in glory, f Isaiah spoke in this way of the first: "We saw Him, and He had neither beauty nor form. But His form was despised and more abject than the sons of men"155. And again: "Behold by Servant, whom I have chosen, My only beloved156, in whom My soul has been well pleased he shall not contend, nor cry out in the streets. The bruised reed He shall not break; and a spent157 flax He shall not extinguish"^8. 819a Further: "Rejoice, O daughter of Jerusalem, greatly; proclaim, O daughter of Sion, Behold your King comes, meek, and mounted upon an ass"159. This is just what has been clearly indicated in the Gospel: that He came into Jerusalem, seated upon an ass160. It is plain, then, that He comes in glory, and once in humility. The Apostle Paul also knows about His coming in glory, for he says, "With the commandment of God, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the last trumpet, the Lord shall come down from heaven, and the dead shall rise — these first. Then we who are left to His coming, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Him"161.

MEG: This is similar to what Daniel says: b "I saw One like a son of man coming though the clouds."

ADAM: And in the Gospel it says, "As lightning comes out of the east and appears even (50) unto the west: so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.' His first coming has been very clearly demonstrated — that it was in humility, and the future coming, that it will be in glory164. So as, when He lived on earth, He announced another coming — the one that is to be in glory

Of course Anastasius just makes passing reference to the discrepancy. Nevertheless this is just one of many examples where things the Marcionite says has been passed on to other people in the Dialogue. The Dialogue as it now stands has obscured a very controversial original text which was 'smoothed' over.

The reason it is significant that in the Jewish canon Daniel is placed with the Writings rather than the Prophets. Porphyry says as much when he argues that the text was really written AFTER the events in question so it represents a kind of 'recap' of second century history rather than foretelling the future. Since Jerome confirms the placing of Daniel in the Writings as early as the fourth century it would appear difficult to reconcile the Marcionite identification of 'the Christ who is to come' reading of Daniel as a 'Jewish interpretation.' Despite what we learn from Josephus, the 'Jewish position' (if there was a such a thing) would have to have been that 'the anointed one' already came at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Of course the incorporation of the Yosippon into the Jewish collection of history writings in the medieval period changed all that. It became fashionable to apply Daniel to the Jewish War. Nevertheless I can't shake the feeling that there was something unmistakably Christian about doing so - at least initially. Indeed I wonder if the Marcionite reading was identical with that of the Markan gospel - viz. that the application of Daniel to explain the events of 70 CE. For instance I have looked high and low for an alternative explanation for the "three years and a half" in Daniel 2:34 - 35 than the period of the Jewish War. I simply can't find one. And already the discussion of the Antichrist (which inevitably develops from this section of Daniel) makes reference to the temple and the Jewish War even if it is ultimately retrojected into the future by various Christian writers. My assumption would then be that the Marcionites somehow did not apply Daniel 2:34 - 35 to 'Jesus' but rather 'Christ' and not the time of Jesus's ministry but to a subsequent period.

The only other 'three and a half' year period that I can find that intersects with Christian history is the rebellion of the Bucoli (172 CE) culminating with the coronation of Avidius Cassius as Emperor (176 CE). Strange. There must have been a lot of Christians in Alexandria at the time.

So let's suppose that the original "three and a half year" period was identified by early Christians as the Jewish War:

For three and a half years Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem, having four generals with him: the general of Arabia, of Africa, of Alexandria, and of Palestine. (Gittin 55b)

If the rabbis knew the time, it is likely the early Christians did as well. Did the early Christians connect the "three and half years" with Daniel 2.34 - 35? Unproven by highly likely I think or at least very possible.

It is important to note that while Josephus seems to accept Daniel 9 as applying to the events in the second century BCE Daniel 2 is taken to apply to the Roman Empire as we saw in early Christianity:

And there would arise from their number a certain king who would make war on the Jewish nation and their laws, deprive them of the form of government based on these laws, spoil the temple and prevent the sacrifices from being offered for three years.b And these misfortunes our nation did in fact come to experience under Antiochus Epiphanes, just as Daniel many years before saw and wrote that they would happen. In the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken by them and the temple laid waste. All these things, as God revealed them to him, he left behind in his writings, so that those who read them and observe how they have come to pass must wonder at Daniel’s having been so honoured by God, and learn from these facts how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude Providence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs or to believe that God governs its affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal being, to the end that the whole of it may endure, but they say that the world runs by its own movement [ αὐτομάτως ] without a knowing guide or another's care.

And Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought it proper to relate this, since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not of what is to be; if, however, there is anyone who has so keen a desire for exact information that he will not stop short of inquiring more closely but wishes to learn about the hidden things that are to come, let him take the trouble to read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings (Ant. 10.210)

Secret Alias wrote:If the rabbis knew the time, it is likely the early Christians did as well.

Two Paths for this:

1. The School at Yavneh produced Zakkai's syntheses for the new Rabbinical Theology. If there are Survivors from the Temple serving at the Patronage of Vespasian, what did they transmit to the Romans who had absolute Control?
2. Weitzman's posited community of Syriac Scholars is separated from the Beginnings of Rabbinical Thought. He sees them as being more incrementally converted (Contract Work?) to Christianity.

These developments occur before the Othodoxy prevails and gets to the Transvaluation-Synthesis and the Finalization that became Christianity.

Either of these 2 paths do anything for you, SA?