Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When was the Book of Daniel written?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 1 of 83 (536054)
11-19-2009 1:37 PM


I previous started a thread to talk about some of the abstract issues regarding prophecy with reference to the Book of Daniel but that didn't go as I had hoped. A few people seem to have an interest in the dating of Daniel so I would like this thread to be all about when this book was written.
As far as I know, there are actually 3 positions on this.
1. Daniel was written sometime in the 6th century B.C. by the prophet Daniel starting in the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon after Daniel and a contingent of Jews were captured during the conquest of Judah. This is supported by claims that the writing describes the times, supposidly describes them accuratly, supposidly uses language from the times, as well as others.
2. Daniel was written sometime in the 2nd century B.C. by a pious person writing under the pseudonym of Daniel to prophesy about events current to the times. This is supported by innaccuracies within the text of Daniel regarding Babylonian history, suprising accuracy about 2nd century events, linguistic artifacts of late origin, the fact that the only copies of Daniel that we have are from the 2nd century, and much more.
3. Daniel was a combination of an early writing adapted and expanded to include references to the current, tumultuous times. Basically a "we don't know" best of both worlds kind of argument.
I think that there is a difficulty in pinning down exactly which is right because like I mentioned to Peg in another thread, I think that there is room for the inadequacies of each argument to hide within the lack of information we have about this book and behind fuzzy definitions and interpretations. That being said, I believe that if you take all the evidence as a whole for each that the weight of the evidence rests with #2. Looking at all there is to know, you come to the conclusion that only with a vast number of explanations, re-definitions, and primarily theological arguments can you even make the claim that ANY part of Daniel MIGHT have been written early rather than late. This I believe is the concensus of modern Biblical scholarship as well as just plainly where the evidence seems to lead.
So for this discussion I would like to set the following ground rules.
1. I would like to avoid the theological argument regarding prophecy. (i.e. Daniel predicted things, therefore other claims of fact in Daniel are beyond reproach) Daniel being accurate prophecy is a seperate argument and has no bearing on weather or not the other statements of fact within the book can be scrutinized.
2. I would in general like to avoid arguments from a purly theological perspective. (i.e. Daniel cannot be wrong because that would make the Bible wrong which would make morality wrong which means the world is gonna end......)
3. In general, I would like to keep the discussion as scholarly as possible, with resepect for both the pious and skeptical positions on this issue.
In my participation in this thread I will be making the following shortcuts for a few names.
Nebuchadnezzar (or various other spellings) will just be called 'Neb'.
Belshazzar will just be called 'Bel'
Nabonidus will be 'Nabo'
Maccabean can be shortened to Mac.
I'll start off where I last left Peg which we were discussing the identification of Bel and how he is evidence for either a late or early dating and we can bring up new arguments from there. I'll do this in my first non-OP post.
This should go into the bible accuracy forum.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 7:30 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 83 (536082)
11-19-2009 6:26 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the When was the Book of Daniel written? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 3 of 83 (536085)
11-19-2009 6:54 PM


There are numerous reasons to accept an early writership for the Book of Daniel. I have outlined the following six for consideration.
1. Daniel is a part of the Hebrew canon and the hebrew cannon was closed before the 4th century BCE. The priests did not allow any new books to be added to the canon and evidence of this is that the apocryphal books and the Macabees were never included in the canon. This adds weight to this because it shows that the priesthood stood as guardians of the scriptures and did not allow them to be added to willy nilly. No new books have been added since the 5th century according to Jewish tradition.
2. Jesus Christ himself accepted Daniels prophecy and also quoted from it when he was describing the future destruction of Jerusalem which came in 70CE. (Matt 24:15 is a quote from Daniel 11:31)
This shows two things. 1. that the prophecies of Daniel were still future in the 1st century and therefore could not refer to, as some suggest, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which was over 100 years before Jesus day. And 2 it shows that the book of Daniel was being used in the synagogues in the 1st century which means they were a part of the cannon. As mentioned above, the connon was closed 3 centuries earlier.
3. Parts of the book of Daniel was also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the parchments of Daniel were dated to be 2nd century BCE. For this reason and the fact that the book was already in circulation by early in the 1st century, it has been concluded by some scholars that as the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible states:
A Maccabean dating for Daniel has now to be abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval between the composition of Daniel and its appearance in the form of copies in the library of a Maccabean religious sect.
4. the Jewish historian Josephus states that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. This was about 332 BCE. Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]
5. Parts of Daniel are written in both Hebrew & Aramaic. About the Aramaic portion of Daniel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:
When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C." (Vol. 1, p. 860)
The style of writing and the terms used are a strong evidence of very early authorship.
6. The 6th Century prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel who served as a prophet during the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel mentions Daniel by name a number of times in his own writings. So if Daniel really was forged, then so was the book of Ezekiel. Not that this in itself proves Daniels early writership, but it does prove that Daniel did live in the 6th century
I also wanted to mention that Daniels prophecy gives the time of appearence of the Messiah. That prophecy is extremely convincing considering it gives the year of the messiahs appearance as 29CE...the very year that Jesus was baptized.
Edited by Peg, : Correction Jesus baptism was in the year 29ce, not 36.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 7:08 PM Peg has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 4 of 83 (536089)
11-19-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
11-19-2009 6:54 PM


Bring out the scales!
1. Daniel is a part of the Hebrew canon and the hebrew cannon was closed before the 4th century BCE. The priests did not allow any new books to be added to the canon and evidence of this is that the apocryphal books and the Macabees were never included in the canon. This adds weight to this because it shows that the priesthood stood as guardians of the scriptures and did not allow them to be added to willy nilly. No new books have been added since the 5th century according to Jewish tradition.
That might be big news to the Hebrews! They closed their canon in the 1st century CE and by your logic would have left out all of the prophets, psalms etc. In fact there were 3 different sets of books that the Hebrews had "closed" canons at DIFFERENT times and they are:
Torah - 400BC - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Prophets - 200BC - (Notice the lack of Daniel) Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc
Writings - 100CE - (Notice the presence of Daniel) Psalms, Proverbs, Job, .... Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles
Your other arguments have some subtlty as to why they are wrong but this one is just plain and simply wrong. Daniel is a late addition to the Hebrew scripture, moreover it actually supports the late dating because it was not included when the Prophets were canonized even though Daniel most certainly SHOULD have been considered on par with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Christians move Daniel out of writings and near the other exilic prophets which is telling on a number of levels. It is more than worth noting that this was done at 200BC just before the argument for the late dating suggests that Daniel was written ~167BC.
I will admit that this is only suggestive of the dating of Daniel. It is TECHNICALLY possible that Daniel was written at any point between 600BC and 100CE. The canons only show us when Daniel was regarded. The Hebrew's had 2 chances to include an early Daniel into their canon. Once at 400BC which they didn't but they also didn't include the other exilic writings. But it IS curious why they did not include him in 200BC when they explicitly DID include the other exilic writings.
The Hebrew canon being closed at 400BC is just plaininly a non-starter Peg. It is factually incorrect that it was closed at 400BC and even if it was, it would have been missing MOST of the books we know today.
2. Jesus Christ himself accepted Daniels prophecy ....
Except for theologically, it is perfectly acceptable for either Jesus or Matthew or both to have been wrong.
3. Parts of the book of Daniel was also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the parchments of Daniel were dated to be 2nd century BCE. For this reason and the fact that the book was already in circulation by early in the 1st century, it has been concluded that:
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: *A Maccabean dating for Daniel has now to be abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval between the composition of Daniel and its appearance in the form of copies in the library of a Maccabean religious sect.*
This is a decently lousy argument because we have absolutly no idea how long it would take a text to be regarded in Qumran. For all we know, the author of Daniel could have been a member/leader of said Maccabean sect in which case it would have been regarded immediatly. There are exactly ZERO copies of Daniel that date older that 167BC and all the DSS copies date to the late 2nd century BC. There may have been as much as a half a century for Daniel to be circulated. Plenty of time especially considering that it was an apocolypse regarding the troubles the Hebrews were having at the time. Daniel also is not that large of a book and was broken into sections some of which differ from the canonical texts (another problem for biblical inerrancy).
There are just SO MANY unknowns and you cannot possibly make this claim. We don't know who the 2nd century author was, we don't know the level of interest in this type of writing or this author. We do have a relativly large window of opportunity and we do know that Daniel was being copied to the point of being differentiated by the late 2nd century when the DSS scrolls are dated.
4. the Jewish historian Josephus states that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. This was about 332 BCE. Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]
And Josephus lived when???
I'll skip the rhetorical question. Excuse me if I don't regard the writings of a 1st century CE jewish apologist as evidence that anything like the sort happend when Alexander came into Jerusalemin 337 BC. There is no evidence contemporary to Alexander that any such event happened.
5. Parts of Daniel are written in both Hebrew & Aramaic. About the Aramaic portion of Daniel, The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia says:
*When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C." (Vol. 1, p. 860) The style of writing and the terms used are a strong evidence of very early authorship.
This is IMO the best of the evidence for an early dating. I don't have the personal expertise to criticize it nor can I find any layman's criticism of it. I'll note just like the canon argument, it does not date Daniel. It dates the language. We can certainly hypothesize that the late author of Daniel certainly was at least trying to make it seem like the writing was contemporary with the exile. Perhaps he also wanted the language to sound like it was contemporary too. I can certainly imagine that if I wanted to write a book of the Bible and make it sound like it fit the King James language that I would be able to do that right now if I was careful.
But I conceed this point, I just don't have the chops to defeat it. It is one chip on the scale of the early dating against what I can see as much more on the side of the late dating.
6. The 6th Century prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel who served as a prophet during the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel mentions Daniel by name a number of times in his own writings. So if Daniel really was forged, then so was the book of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel does not mention the exilic Daniel and certainly does not do it a "number of times". He mentions a person named Dan'el and only does so twice in the exact same context less than 10 verses apart. Dan'el was a non-Hebrew hero just like Noah and Job that Ezekiel mentions in the same breath. In fact, he mentions Dan'el in between the two, "Noah, Dan'el, and Job". What is similar about them? They were all non-Hebrew, considered righteous (in context of Ezekiel 14), and long gone. In the context of Ezekiel 14, it is not possible that he could have been refering to the Daniel of the exile. Note Ezekiel verse 20 (...they could save neither son nor daughter...) and that Daniel of the exile had no kids. The Babylonians made sure of that.
7. The fact is that Daniel gave the timing of the Messiahs arrival. his prophecy regarding the 69 weeks of years is a messianic prophecy about when the Messiah would appear. Daniel 9:25-26
Even IF this was a prophecy of Jesus which it is not, it just means that Daniel was pretty good about being a prophet 200 years before Jesus rather than 600 years before. It doesn't prove that it was written in the exile at all.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 6:54 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 8:38 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 83 (536092)
11-19-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
11-19-2009 1:37 PM


Clearning a few things up about Bel
I said what I wanted to about Bel in the other thread but just to clarify:
Here is the lineage of Babylonian kings from Neb:
Nebuchadnezzar 604-562
Amel-Marduk 561-560 (Neb's son)
Neriglissar 559-556 (Neb's son-in-law, killed Amel)
Labasi-Marduk 556 (Neri's son)
Nabonidus 555-539 (noble, in a plot with his son Belshazzar killed Labasi)
This we have contemporary history for. With just this information, Bel was not related to Neb at all. His dad Nabo was a
ursurper to the throne.
There is an apologist argument to this that one of Neb's daughters Nitocris married Nabo making Bel her son or at least
step-son. But there is no evidence for this. It is also suggesting that Nitocris, the mother of Labasi-Marduk who was
KILLED by Nabo would marry the very man who murdered her son in order to take the throne. (Labasi was only a kid when he took over for his dad)
So lets recap:
1. Bel was not a "king" unless you redefine king.
2. Bel was not the "son" of Neb unless you redefine "son"
3. Bel was not even related to Neb which makes it weird when Daniel has him calling him "father"
How did Daniel get it so wrong then? The Book of Baruch helps us out with that. This is a writing that would have been contemperaneous with a 2nd century Daniel. In it "Baruch" says:
And pray for the life of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days may be upon earth as the days of heaven:
And the Lord will give us strength, and lighten our eyes, and we shall live under the shadow of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, and under the shadow of Balthasar his son, and we shall serve them many days, and find favour in their sight.
So we know at the very least, that some people writing in the Mac period had the belief that Bel was the son of Neb. Who knows why. Bad oral tradition, bad record keeping of Babylonians under Persian and subsequently Greek rule? The point is that it was apparently common enough for more than one Mac writer to mention it.
Last point I wanted to clear up was the conquest of Babylon. You claimed that it was violent, Isaiah claims it should be violent. But both the Cyrus Cylinder and Chronicles of Nabonidus (the same place you get your touted contemporary reference to Bel) both mention that the conquest of the city itself was bloodless.
Cyrus Cylinder - Wikipedia
Nabonidus Chronicle - Wikipedia

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 1:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 10:24 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 6 of 83 (536100)
11-19-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jazzns
11-19-2009 7:08 PM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Jazzns writes:
The Hebrew canon being closed at 400BC is just plaininly a non-starter Peg. It is factually incorrect that it was closed at 400BC and even if it was, it would have been missing MOST of the books we know today.
why would it be missing books??? Only because you assume that the books were written late. However according to Jesephus, the books of the 13 prophets were written and complete by the time of Artaxerxes who was from 465—424 BCE.
Josephus wrote in 'Against Apion' (I, 38-40 [8]) that the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed for a long time. He wrote:
We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver.... From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books.
Jazzns writes:
Except for theologically, it is perfectly acceptable for either Jesus or Matthew or both to have been wrong.
If jesus was the Messiah, then he could not have been wrong becuase the Messiah was sent by God, with full knowlege of the history of the world. Jesus had a prehuman existence and therefore he would not have used that book if it were a fake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 7:08 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 8:46 PM Peg has replied
 Message 11 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 4:03 AM Peg has replied
 Message 78 by Iblis, posted 12-19-2009 11:54 PM Peg has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 83 (536102)
11-19-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
11-19-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Bring out the scales!
why would it be missing books???
Because the Jews only canonized the Torah in 400BC. Did you even read what I wrote?
Only because you assume that the books were written late.
Not at all! Many of the books that did not make it into the 400BC canon were already written. I never claimed for example that Jeremiah was late. In fact all evidence points to that book being about 6th century BC. It just wasn't part of canon until 200BC. You made the claim that the Hebrew canon was closed at 400BC. It wasn't. That's a fact.
However according to Jesephus, ....
Josephus was writing ~100 CE AFTER the last Hebrew canon.
You are basically engaging in history denial if you are claiming that the Jewish Old Testament is as it was at 400BC.
If jesus was the Messiah, then he could not have been wrong becuase the Messiah was sent by God
Not interested in theological arguments for dating Daniel.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 8:38 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 10:46 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 8 of 83 (536117)
11-19-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jazzns
11-19-2009 7:30 PM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
Jazzns writes:
There is an apologist argument to this that one of Neb's daughters Nitocris married Nabo making Bel her son or at least
step-son. But there is no evidence for this.
on the contrary, it was Herodotus who refers to the son of Nabonidus and Nitocris as fighting against Cyrus the Persian.
So there is external evidence that Nitocris married Nabo & that she was the daughter of Neb.
this would explain the reason why Nabo was able to take the Babylonian throne. It would also harmonize with the fact that Neb is referred to as the father of Nabo's son Bel.... with Nitocris being Bels mother, and she being Nebs daugther, then Bel is aptly called a 'son' of Neb by blood relation.
Jazzns writes:
Last point I wanted to clear up was the conquest of Babylon. You claimed that it was violent, Isaiah claims it should be violent. But both the Cyrus Cylinder and Chronicles of Nabonidus (the same place you get your touted contemporary reference to Bel) both mention that the conquest of the city itself was bloodless.
firstly, you are wrong about there being no battle. There certainly was a battle that was fought the way all battles were fought...with swords on the battlefield. It began earlier with an unprecedented military engagement known as the Battle of Opis.
The prophets Isaiah and Jerimiah fortold hundreds of years in advance of the details of babylon. here is what Isaiah says would happen:
Isaiah 44: 27-28 "the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; 28the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’
45:1- ...to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut..."
Jerimiah in chpt 50 says:
35There is a sword against the Chal‧de′ans,... and they will certainly become women. There is a sword against her treasures, and they will actually be plundered. 38There is a devastation upon her waters, and they must be dried up
51:30The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight. They have kept sitting in the strong places. Their mightiness has run dry. They have become women. Her residences have been set on fire. Her bars have been broken.
31One runner runs to meet another runner, and one reporter to meet another reporter, to report to the king of Babylon that his city has been captured at every end, 32and that the fords themselves have been seized, and the papyrus boats they have burned with fire, and the men of war themselves have become disturbed
All quotes taken from this wiki article
The prophecies show that Babylon was to be taken by one named Cyrus.
The babylonians would be 'like women' This means they would not fight like men. The men of the city did not put up a fight because apparently they were all drunk at a feast in the castle. this is also why Cyrus could walk into the city and why the 'Gates were not shut'
Cyrus claimed the city by walking through the gates of Babylon with little or no resistance from the drunken Babylonians.
the rivers would be devistated and dried up & the fords would be seized
Cyrus' troops diverted the Euphrates river upstream, causing the Euphrates to drop to about 'mid thigh level on a man' or to dry up altogether. The soldiers marched under the walls through thigh-level water
You say that the takeover was bloodless. This means you are saying that no one died when Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Are you able to provide some evidence that no one died in the takeover?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 7:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 2:15 AM Peg has replied
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 10:26 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 83 (536121)
11-19-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jazzns
11-19-2009 8:46 PM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Jazzns writes:
Because the Jews only canonized the Torah in 400BC. Did you even read what I wrote?
perhaps you can explain what books you are refering to as the canonized torah of 400bce
and provide evidence for such
maybe then i can get on the same page as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2009 8:46 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 11-20-2009 10:31 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 83 (536138)
11-20-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Peg
11-19-2009 10:24 PM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
quote:
So there is external evidence that Nitocris married Nabo & that she was the daughter of Neb.
Where is the evidence that Nitocris was the daughter of Neb ? Herodotus mentions her as the mother of Bel, but doesn't identify her father.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 10:24 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 4:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 11 of 83 (536140)
11-20-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
11-19-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Bring out the scales!
the books of the 13 prophets
Who are the 13 prophets? There are 15 or more prophets whose names are used to identify books in our Bible, not counting several other books of history.
You appear to be missing at least two, couldn't Daniel have been one of them?
Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty
What are the 22 books? Our Bibles have 39 books in the Old Testament, the Jewish canon has 24.
Again, you appear to be missing at least 2. Couldn't one of them have been Daniel?
Jesephus
Josephus does not appear to recognize Daniel as one of the traditional prophets of the Hebrew canon. In fact, he argues very hard that he should be paid attention to, even though he is very different from them.
Josephus writes:
And while prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree, that by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the goodwill of all men; and by the accomplishment of them, he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of [a sort of] divinity for himself, among the multitude.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm
Josephus is also notoriously inaccurate about Persian history, particularly the early period. He confuses Xerxes with Artaxerxes, Cyaxares II with Astyages, and makes numerous other errors.
This isn't all his fault, he is constrained by the standards of his Roman masters to follow Greek historians and dramatists (!) who were engaged in propagandizing their enemies rather than getting minor details right like who was who and what was what. He is aware of this, and apologizes to his readers for it.
Josephus at the end of the same chapter writes:
Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.
He is also currying imperial favor in another way. He has taken their gens name Flavius, he wants to be an important advisor. It is probably not a coincidence that his writings have a recurrent theme of conquerors reading books written by Jews which very wisely say how great the victorious emperors are.
Alexander is not the first of these, here is what he says about Cyrus
Josephus writes:
This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, (2) and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-11.htm
Interesting thing to be writing when you are engaged in petitioning for the restoration of Jerusalem based on your service as governor under their rule. Here is the Alexander version
Josephus in the same chapter writes:
The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired.
Notice that in this passage Alexander enters the temple and that's just OK with everyone in the story! Clearly we are dealing with some other kind of literature at this point than a sober, factual history.
Here's the punchline to this one
Josephus writes:
But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-6.htm
Just as a side note, the Isaiah passage doesn't refer to its subject as a Persian king at any time, but rather as the messiah
Isaiah 45:1 writes:
Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
The name Cyrus is actually Latin, following Josephus rather than vice-versa. The Hebrew word it is standing in for, in case anyone has forgotten the dangers of making too much of this particular scripture, is Koresh.
Koresh: "What is Christ revealed as, according to the fourth seal?"
FBI: "Pale... a rider on a pale horse."
Koresh: "And his name is what?"
FBI: "Death."
Koresh: "Now, do you know what the name Koresh means?"
FBI: "Go ahead..."
Koresh: "It means death."
David Koresh - Wikipedia
Anyway, back to the point.
and therefore he would not have used that book if it were a fake.
Did he, though? Is this a strict rendering of the words of Jesus in his speech, or is it a paraphrased commentary by someone with their own sermon to preach
Matthew 24:15 writes:
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
Is Jesus a character in a fictional book, who can "break the fourth wall" and speechify directly to the reader?
Here is how Luke records the same address
Luke 21:20 writes:
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
No abomination, no Daniel, and no wink to us.
I'm going to let you blame Matthew for this one until you get caught up
Matthew 13:52 writes:
Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.
Now for the rough stuff.
If jesus was the Messiah, then he could not have been wrong becuase
Wow, icthus in a barrel. If your faith was of any value to you at all, I don't think you would be betting it on Imperial toadies and dodgy numerology schemes.
That prophecy is extremely convincing considering it gives the year of the messiahs appearance as 36CE...the very year that Jesus was baptized.
Which would place his birth around 6 AD. Josephus puts the death of Herod the Great at 4 BC, 9 years earlier. (Can't have your Matthew and eat it too ...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 8:38 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 5:59 AM Iblis has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 12 of 83 (536145)
11-20-2009 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
11-20-2009 2:15 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
PaulK writes:
Where is the evidence that Nitocris was the daughter of Neb ? Herodotus mentions her as the mother of Bel, but doesn't identify her father.
admittedly, the evidence is patchy as you would expect. But it is still there in bits and pieces and many have been led to conclude that Nitocris, who was named as the mother of Belshazzar, was a daughter of Neb because she was a queen.
Here is an intersting list of No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.historyofthedaughters.com/34.pdfdaughters of babylon where details of Nitocris is found
The Ancient Dictionary Page 1205 - look halfway down the page on the left side column

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 2:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 5:48 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 83 (536151)
11-20-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
11-20-2009 4:53 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
quote:
admittedly, the evidence is patchy as you would expect. But it is still there in bits and pieces and many have been led to conclude that Nitocris, who was named as the mother of Belshazzar, was a daughter of Neb because she was a queen.
Yet she could also be queen, just by being married to the king.
quote:
Here is an intersting list of daughters of babylon where details of Nitocris is found
(Corrected use of URL tag - PAK)
Yet it seems to be mainly more speculation with regard to "Nitocris". Not all of which is even compatible with your view (e.g. it suggests that Nitocris might have been born 20 years before Nebuchadnezzar - hardly possible if she was his daughter !). In fact it suggests that she was queen prior to Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
quote:
The Ancient Dictionary Page 1205 - look halfway down the page on the left side column
That says that most "modern" writers supposed her to be the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. (Even if this were evidence it clearly contradicts your assertion that she was his daughter !).
So, where is the evidence ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 4:53 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 83 (536154)
11-20-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Iblis
11-20-2009 4:03 AM


Re: Bring out the scales!
Iblis writes:
Josephus does not appear to recognize Daniel as one of the traditional prophets of the Hebrew canon.
the ancient rabbis arranged the books of the canon in 3 groups- the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. They listed Daniel with the Writings. However the greek septuagint lists Daniel in between the major and minor prophets. I dont know if anyone knows why this was the case.
Obviously he was considered a prophet because jesus quoted from his prophecies and many jews accepted that.
Iblis writes:
Who are the 13 prophets? There are 15 or more prophets whose names are used to identify books in our Bible, not counting several other books of history.
this is a harder one to decipher by Josephus broad statement because the books were arranged differently to what we have them. Some books were together as one such as Ezra and Nehemiah for instance. This could have been a similar situation with the prophets. Because these writings were written on long continuous scrolls, they were kept together. The scribes also had a system for keeping track of things. They would name a scroll after each letter of the hebrew alphabet and the contents of that scroll would always remain the same. It wasnt until many centuries later that the bible was divided into smaller books with chapters and paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 4:03 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 7:03 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 15 of 83 (536155)
11-20-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
11-20-2009 5:48 AM


Re: Clearning a few things up about Bel
there are two nebuchudnezzars
Neb I & Neb II
Neb II is the one i'm refering, but i apologize, i dont think i made that clear at all

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 5:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2009 6:35 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024